Publishing Without Journals: An Open, Forkable Archive with Attributed Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.05454v1
• Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2026 20:57:36 GMT
• Title: Publishing Without Journals: An Open, Forkable Archive with Attributed Review
• Abstract summary: We argue that bundling dissemination and certification into a single gated act is not defects to be patched.<n>Authors deposit papers in an open archive; certification happens continuously, through attributed and up- or down-voted public commentary to which authors may reply.<n>Papers are version-controlled objects that any qualified reader may emphfork, so that the lineage of an idea -- and hence the credit for it -- is recorded automatically.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The journal is a seventeenth-century technology asked to do four modern jobs at once: disseminate results, certify their quality, allocate scholarly attention, and confer career credit. It does none of them well. Pre-publication peer review is slow, only weakly reliable, demonstrably biased toward established authors and institutions, and expensive, while the reviewing effort it consumes is spent largely on work that will never matter. We argue that these are not defects to be patched but consequences of bundling dissemination and certification into a single gated act, and we propose unbundling them. Under the proposal, authors deposit papers in an open archive; certification happens \emph{after} deposit, continuously, through attributed and up- or down-voted public commentary to which authors may reply; and papers are version-controlled objects that any qualified reader may \emph{fork}, so that the lineage of an idea -- and hence the credit for it -- is recorded automatically. None of the individual components is speculative: each already exists somewhere in the scholarly ecosystem. The contribution here is to argue that assembling them into a single venue that \emph{replaces} rather than supplements the journal is both feasible and preferable, and to confront the objections -- sparse participation, the chilling effect of real names, the loss of the certification signal, and the non-meritocratic distribution of attention -- that any honest version of the argument must answer.

Related papers

• PaperMentor: A Human-Centered Multi-Agent Writing Tutor for AI Research Papers on Overleaf [51.79108552674703]
  We present PaperMentor, a human-centered writing assistant system that delivers actionable suggestions as Overleaf-native inline comments.<n>PaperMentor integrates an expert skill library carefully curated from established researchers' writing advice with 12 specialized agents covering different aspects of paper writing.<n>In a user study, 90.6% of the generated comments were rated actionable and 67.5% were rated valid, significantly outperforming a GPT-5.2 baseline uswithout the skill library.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-07T22:17:15Z)
• The Last Human-Written Paper: Agent-Native Research Artifacts [106.47848184955576]
  We introduce the Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA), a protocol that replaces the narrative paper with a machine-executable research package.<n>Three mechanisms support the ecosystem: a Live Research Manager that captures decisions and dead ends during ordinary development; an ARA Compiler that translates legacy PDFs and repos into ARAs; and an ARA-native review system that automates objective checks so human reviewers can focus on significance, novelty, and taste.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-27T16:23:09Z)
• When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee? [73.47745294608072]
  We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level.<n>We use two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T08:03:32Z)
• sciwrite-lint: Verification Infrastructure for the Age of Science Vibe-Writing [0.0]
  Science currently offers two options for quality assurance, both inadequate.<n>We propose a third option: measure the paper itself.<n> sciwrite-lint is an open-source linter for scientific manuscripts that runs entirely on the researcher's machine.<n>We evaluate the pipeline on 30 unseen papers from arXiv and bioRxiv with error injection and LLM-adjudicated false positive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T17:46:44Z)
• FactReview: Evidence-Grounded Reviews with Literature Positioning and Execution-Based Claim Verification [57.196748998757954]
  We present FactReview, an evidence-grounded reviewing system that combines claim extraction, literature positioning, and execution-based claim verification.<n>Given a submission, FactReview identifies major claims and reported results, retrieves nearby work to clarify the paper's technical position, and, when code is available, executes the released repository.<n>It then produces a concise review and an evidence report that assigns each major claim one of five labels: Supported, Supported by the paper, Partially supported, In conflict, or Inconclusive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T11:45:22Z)
• Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework [55.078301794183496]
  We focus on a core reviewing skill that underpins high-quality peer review: detecting faulty research logic.<n>This involves evaluating the internal consistency between a paper's results, interpretations, and claims.<n>We present a fully automated counterfactual evaluation framework that isolates and tests this skill under controlled conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:48:00Z)
• DecentPeeR: A Self-Incentivised & Inclusive Decentralized Peer Review System [11.477670199123335]
  We show that our system, DecentPeeR, incentivizes reviewers to behave according to the rules, i.e., it has a unique Nash equilibrium in which virtuous behavior is rewarded.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T09:13:16Z)
• Decentralized Peer Review in Open Science: A Mechanism Proposal [0.0]
  We propose a community-owned and -governed system for peer review. The system aims to increase quality and speed of peer review while lowering the chance and impact of erroneous judgements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-28T11:42:54Z)
• Eliciting Honest Information From Authors Using Sequential Review [13.424398627546788]
  We propose a sequential review mechanism that can truthfully elicit the ranking information from authors. The key idea is to review the papers of an author in a sequence based on the provided ranking and conditioning the review of the next paper on the review scores of the previous papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-24T17:27:39Z)
• 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)
• Making Paper Reviewing Robust to Bid Manipulation Attacks [44.34601846490532]
  Anecdotal evidence suggests that some reviewers bid on papers by "friends" or colluding authors. We develop a novel approach for paper bidding and assignment that is much more robust against such attacks. In addition to being more robust, the quality of our paper review assignments is comparable to that of current, non-robust assignment approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-09T21:24:16Z)
• Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing? [89.50052670307434]
  We discuss the possibility of using state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models to generate first-pass peer reviews for scientific papers. We collect a dataset of papers in the machine learning domain, annotate them with different aspects of content covered in each review, and train targeted summarization models that take in papers to generate reviews. Comprehensive experimental results show that system-generated reviews tend to touch upon more aspects of the paper than human-written reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-30T07:16:53Z)

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

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.