Blogging arxiv

by Henry on August 24, 2005

Sean Carroll reports that the arxiv pre-print series has started to integrate itself into the blogosphere; this strikes me as a Very Big Deal indeed for academic blogging. Non-physicists may not be familiar with arxiv (I know that I certainly wasn’t before I started getting interested in network topology) – it’s effectively replaced journal publication as the primary means for physicists to communicate with each other. Journal publication is still important – but as an imprimatur, a proof of quality, rather than a way to disseminate findings to a wider audience. arxiv has now introduced trackbacks – people visiting the abstract of a paper on arxiv can see what blogs have commented on the paper, and read what they have had to say. Furthermore, arxiv has rss feeds of recent papers, classified by subject matter, making it much easier to keep up with new publications in a subfield.

This seems to me to be the nucleus of something like the new approach to academic publishing that John Holbo has advocated, in which blogs and bloglike tools become an integrated part of academia, creating conversation around interesting recent papers, filtering the good ones from the not-so-good ones etc etc. I can see potential problems down the line (trackback spam, attempts to game the system etc) – but the promise that this holds for physicists (and for non-physicists when we get around to creating arxiv equivalents) seems to me to be nothing short of extraordinary.

Update: It appears as though Jacques Distler had a lot to do with this.

{ 4 trackbacks }

Ars Mathematica » Blog Archive » Arxiv trackbacks
08.24.05 at 9:49 pm
Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » arXiv Trackbacks
08.24.05 at 10:25 pm
Library clips :: arxiv: e-print trackbacks :: August :: 2005
08.26.05 at 2:03 am
Institutional and Academic Repositories «
12.20.05 at 1:42 pm



Walt Pohl 08.24.05 at 9:43 pm

From my point of view, this is the greatest news ever. I run a small site, Ars Mathematica, which mainly consists of links to papers on ArXiv that I find interesting. I’m not sure what’s in it for ArXiv, though.


lensman 08.24.05 at 10:15 pm

to mix it up


chris uggen 08.24.05 at 10:45 pm

amazing. law profs and economists have made tentative movements in this direction too (e.g., showing “top 5 downloads” of the week). i could see this as *part* of a tenure file already. these are tall times indeed.


Hektor Bim 08.25.05 at 8:45 am

Cool! I have to go try this out.


matt hellige 08.25.05 at 9:52 am

Computer science also has something like this, in the form of CiteSeer (more here). It’s a valuable tool in itself, but coupled with a whole universe of mailing lists and sites like Lambda the Ultimate, where both researchers and interested laypeople (mostly professional engineers) post and discuss one another’s work, a really beautiful thing happens.

Having gotten used to that sense of community and open discussion, it’s been pretty frustrating to pursue interests in other fields (particularly the humanities) where open document indexes and lots of online discussion don’t seem to be the norm.

Also, you might want to take a look at CiteULike, which is sort of like a for research citations.


Bill Gardner 08.25.05 at 11:03 am

This is great…
We may need different solutions in other fields. I haven’t seen arXiv communities in clinical medicine (I’d appreciate a pointer, if anyone knows about them).


risa 08.25.05 at 12:16 pm

Thanks for the heads up about the arxiv rss! I hadn’t noticed this before. To me, this is way cooler than the trackbacks…


guerby 08.25.05 at 3:34 pm

Bill, PLOS and PLOS Medecine may be what you’re looking for.



Bill Gardner 08.25.05 at 8:22 pm

Many thanks for the links. I had heard about the Public Library of Science (PLOS) project, but hadn’t seen the actual journals. There is also the BMC (BioMedCentral) project from the NIH, which has been extremely successful (I published an article in their psychiatry journal, and the experience was great).

BMC and PLOS are different than the arXiv system, because they are peer reviewed. I think this is good for medicine. We’re bigger, and there is much more money at stake, and there’s less true. Most of us feel that we need prior peer review as a filter; whereas I gather physicists do not.

Medicine is very well served by electronic journal publishing, with PubMed as a super-portal. Blogs are not part of the system — at least not yet. We need some fresh ideas.


Bill Gardner 08.25.05 at 8:24 pm

Friends, there is a fer real ~*Freudian*~ slip in the last post. I meant to say “there’s less trust” instead of “there’s less true”.

But the truth will out…


Bill Gardner 08.25.05 at 8:26 pm

I meant to say, “there’s less trust”, not “there’s less true”. Or maybe I meant both…


agm 08.26.05 at 9:05 pm

Um, it should be pointed out that arxiv is for SOME parts of physics but is by no means how all physicists get the word out on the street. Though it’d be awfully nice to have something less than the 8-12 month review period for JGR…

Comments on this entry are closed.