[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust

This is great Jonathan,

I'll contact you off list to talk a little more on biorxiv and psyarxiv.

Just the other day I was approached to review an article - but as you all know there is no payment for reviewing articles. It is hard for someone outside of a very large organisation to find the time to review others articles. This harks back to the discussion around how ripe the publication system is for disruption. The basic argument goes something like : The journals are paid to publish and host researcher's articles, but the journals don't pay reviewers and others involved in the process. There is nothing propping up the mechanism of publishing at the bottom end, so the machine will eventually grind to a halt and the top will fall.

There are also other common arguments around the right of free access to research publications for people outside of academic institutions and large companies.

In this day and age of online social networks, it really isn't that difficult to gather a publication's weight directly from citation frequency and other metrics - no matter where the article is published. Similarly the comments and opinions of readers can be integrated and associated with publications on the same site on the internet - without the need to lengthy antiquated review processes. In my opinion the whole publication system should be reenvisioned and modernised.

Aaron Swartz should not have been reprocessed by the fabric of the west's systems without instigating change.


On 23/5/23 22:54, Jonathan Z Simon wrote:

In this context I would avoid the term “publishing”, since that has such a different meaning for so many people, but I personally do take advantage of posting preprints on a public server (like arXiv) almost every chance I get.

Preprints (preprint = a fully written paper that is not (yet) published) have been useful for many decades, originally in physics, as a way of getting one's research results out in a timely manner. Other key benefits are that it establishes primacy of the research findings, that it is citable in other researchers' papers, and that it can be promoted by social media such as this listserve (more below on this). But the biggest benefit is typically getting the paper out into the world for others to learn from, without having to wait based on the whims of publishers and individual reviewers. If most of your published papers get accepted eventually, and the most important findings don’t get cut in the review process, then preprints are something you should definitely consider. Reviewers often make published papers better, but maybe not so much better that it’s worth waiting many months for others to see your results.

arXiv is the oldest website for posting preprints, and if its Audio and Speech section is active, that might be a good place to post your preprints. But there may be other options for you. As an auditory neuroscientist I typically use bioRxiv (e.g., "Changes in Cortical Directional Connectivity during Difficult Listening in Younger and Older Adults” <https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.19.541500>), but I also use PsyArXiv if the topic is more perceptual than neural (e.g., “Attention Mobilization as a Modulator of Listening Effort: Evidence from Pupillometry” <https://psyarxiv.com/u5xw2>). [See what I mean about promoting your research on social media?]

I’m sure others have opinions too.


On May 22, 2023, at 6:45 PM, Matt Flax <flatmax@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Is anyone publishing on arXiv at the moment ? It seems that to publish there they rely on a web of trust.

There is an Audio and Speech section of arXiv which would suit our community.



Jonathan Z. Simon (he/him)
University of Maryland
Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering / Dept. of Biology / Institute for Systems Research
8223 Paint Branch Dr.
College Park, MD 20742 USA
Office: 1-301-405-3645, Lab: 1-301-405-9604, Fax: 1-301-314-9281