I have seen arvix being quoted on a lot of websites. I am not sure why Cornell University’s website is so famous. I just wanted to know if there is any specific reason for that?
Anyone can post a paper to arxiv.org (without going through the lengthy process of submitting to a traditional journal and going through peer review) so research appears much more quickly, and everything is open (unlike many traditional journal which require paid subscriptions).
The speed and open-access aspects of arxiv are have what made it so popular, and have had a big impact on many areas of research. (Note that some would consider the lack of peer-review to be a downside).
So it’s Github for research papers. Use if you want but at your own risk. Thanks.
If you’re interested, here is an account of Arxiv’s history:
@rachel have you noticed any degradation in the quality of papers based on the open nature of the platform? My initial guess would be that the journal/peer review process is overly conservative/slow, but do you think arxiv risks going too far to the other extreme? As someone who doesn’t have a PhD it’s sometimes harder for me to pick up on the weaknesses of a paper, especially at first, so wondering if this is something to think about when considering papers on arxiv.
Even people who have Ph.D. sometimes don’t pick up on weaknesses of a paper, like in the case of amsgrad.
The review process of many of journals is too gerontocratic, and fixed in their views, which could lead to acceptance of mediocre papers and rejection of better ones. That said most people use ArXiV to put their work in the open, sort of to stake a claim and them submit to a journal.