Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust (Alain de Cheveigne )

Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust
From:    Alain de Cheveigne  <>
Date:    Wed, 24 May 2023 09:26:32 +0100

Hi Jonathan, all, Here's a different perspective.=20 First of all, the issue of peer review should be distinguished from that = of publishers shaving the wool off our backs (more below). Peer review offers functions that we miss out on in the preprint model. = Weeding out junk is one, improving papers (and the ideas in them) is = another. A third is reducing the bulk of things to read.=20 The last might seem counterintuitive: surely, more is better? The thing = is, we have limited time and cognitive bandwidth. Lack of time is the = major obstacle to keeping abreast, and lack of time of the potential = audience is what prevents our ideas having an impact. You painstakingly = work to solve a major problem in the field, write it up carefully, and = no one notices because attention is carried away by the tweet cycle. The review/journal model helps in several ways. First, by prioritizing = things to read (as an alternative to the random - or otherwise biased - = selection induced by lack of time). Second, by improving the = readability of the papers: more readable means less time per paper means = more attention for other papers - including possibly yours. Third, by = organizing - however imperfectly - the field.=20 For example, you can (or could) keep abreast of a topic in acoustics by = scanning JASA and a few other journals. With the preprint/twitter model = the 'field' risks being shattered into micro-fields, bubbles, or = cliques. My experience of the review process is - as everyone's - mixed. I = remember intense frustration at the reviewer's dumbness, and despair at = ever getting published. I also remember what I learned in the process. = Almost invariably, my papers were improved by orders of magnitude (not = just incrementally).=20 I also spend a lot of time reviewing. I find it a painful process, as it = involves reading (I'm a bit dyslexic), and trying to understand what is = written and - to be helpful to the author - what the author had in mind = and how he/she could better formulate it to get the message across, and = avoid wasting the time of - hopefully - countless readers. It does = involve weeding out some junk too.=20 Science is not just about making new discoveries or coming up with = radically new ideas. These are few and far between. Rather, it's a slow = process of building on other people's ideas, digesting, tearing down, = clearing the rubble, and building some more. The review process makes = the edifice more likely to stand. Journals play an important role in = this accumulation, even if most content is antiquated and boring. It's a = miracle that some journals have done this over decades, even centuries. Which brings back to the issue of money, impact factors, and careers. = Lots to say about that, mostly depressing, but mainly orthogonal from = the peer-review issue. Alain > On 23 May 2023, at 13:54, Jonathan Z Simon <jzsimon@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >=20 > Matt, >=20 > In this context I would avoid the term =E2=80=9Cpublishing=E2=80=9D, = 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. >=20 > Preprints (preprint =3D 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=E2=80=99= 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=E2=80=99s worth waiting many months for = others to see your results. >=20 > 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=E2=80=9D = <>), but I also = use PsyArXiv if the topic is more perceptual than neural (e.g., = =E2=80=9CAttention Mobilization as a Modulator of Listening Effort: = Evidence from Pupillometry=E2=80=9D <>). [See = what I mean about promoting your research on social media?]=20 >=20 > I=E2=80=99m sure others have opinions too. >=20 > Jonathan >=20 >=20 >> On May 22, 2023, at 6:45 PM, Matt Flax <flatmax@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>=20 >> Is anyone publishing on arXiv at the moment ? It seems that to = publish there they rely on a web of trust. >>=20 >> There is an Audio and Speech section of arXiv which would suit our = community. >>=20 >> thanks >>=20 >> Matt >=20 > -- > 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 > >=20 >=20

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University