Related papers: ArXiving Before Submission Helps Everyone

ArXiving Before Submission Helps Everyone

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.05365v1
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 22:26:44 GMT
Title: ArXiving Before Submission Helps Everyone
Authors: Dmytro Mishkin and Amy Tabb and Jiri Matas
Abstract summary: We analyze the pros and cons of arXiving papers. We see no reasons why anyone but the authors should decide whether to arXiv or not.
Score: 38.09600429721343
License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Abstract: We claim, and present evidence, that allowing arXiv publication before a conference or journal submission benefits researchers, especially early career, as well as the whole scientific community. Specifically, arXiving helps professional identity building, protects against independent re-discovery, idea theft and gate-keeping; it facilitates open research result distribution and reduces inequality. The advantages dwarf the drawbacks -- mainly the relative increase in acceptance rate of papers of well-known authors -- which studies show to be marginal. Analyzing the pros and cons of arXiving papers, we conclude that requiring preprints be anonymous is nearly as detrimental as not allowing them. We see no reasons why anyone but the authors should decide whether to arXiv or not.

Related papers

How many preprints have actually been printed and why: a case study of computer science preprints on arXiv [9.783989953810725]
We quantify how many preprints have eventually been printed in peer-reviewed venues. Among those published manuscripts, some are published under different titles and without an update to their preprints on arXiv. In the field of computer science, published preprints feature adequate revisions, multiple authorship, detailed abstract and introduction, extensive and authoritative references and available source code.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-03T17:56:16Z)
Estimating the Causal Effect of Early ArXiving on Paper Acceptance [56.538813945721685]
We estimate the effect of arXiving a paper before the reviewing period (early arXiving) on its acceptance to the conference. Our results suggest that early arXiving may have a small effect on a paper's chances of acceptance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-24T07:45:38Z)
Characterizing the effect of retractions on scientific careers [1.6758573326215693]
Retracting academic papers is a fundamental tool of quality control when the validity of papers or the integrity of authors is questioned. Previous studies have highlighted the adverse effects of retractions on citation counts and coauthors' citations. Our investigation focuses on the likelihood of authors exiting scientific publishing following a retraction, and the evolution of collaboration networks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-11T15:52:39Z)
Cracking Double-Blind Review: Authorship Attribution with Deep Learning [43.483063713471935]
We propose a transformer-based, neural-network architecture to attribute an anonymous manuscript to an author. We leverage all research papers publicly available on arXiv amounting to over 2 million manuscripts. Our method achieves an unprecedented authorship attribution accuracy, where up to 73% of papers are attributed correctly.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-14T15:50:24Z)
Geodesics, Non-linearities and the Archive of Novelty Search [69.6462706723023]
We show that a key effect of the archive is that it counterbalances the exploration biases that result from the use of inadequate behavior metrics. Our observations seem to hint that attributing a more active role to the archive in sampling can be beneficial.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-06T12:03:40Z)
A Measure of Research Taste [91.3755431537592]
We present a citation-based measure that rewards both productivity and taste. The presented measure, CAP, balances the impact of publications and their quantity. We analyze the characteristics of CAP for highly-cited researchers in biology, computer science, economics, and physics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-05-17T18:01:47Z)
Enhancing Scientific Papers Summarization with Citation Graph [78.65955304229863]
We redefine the task of scientific papers summarization by utilizing their citation graph. We construct a novel scientific papers summarization dataset Semantic Scholar Network (SSN) which contains 141K research papers in different domains. Our model can achieve competitive performance when compared with the pretrained models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-04-07T11:13:35Z)
De-anonymization of authors through arXiv submissions during double-blind review [33.15282901539867]
We investigate the effects of releasing arXiv preprints of papers undergoing a double-blind review process. We find statistically significant evidence of positive correlation between percentage acceptance and papers with high reputation released on arXiv.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-07-01T01:40:06Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.