ArXiV at 20, a brief review.30 Aug 2011 in review, paper, arxiv, physics, open science
I just read the brief article by Paul Ginsparg about 20 years of the ArXiV. I think the article is a must read for anyone who is thinking about scientific communication. It’s short, and very readable.
The things that stand out for me from this article are the following:
There are real costs associated with running services on the web.
Ginsparg originally imagined that the service that he created could run automatically and that he would be able to get back to his research projects very quickly. The enterprise ended up being a full time job for 20 years. The overhead implicit in doing peer review, or even minimal quality filtering had prevented the addition of features into the site. This is not much to the disadvantage of the ArXiV, as Ginsparg points out it is perfectly OK for such services to live outside of the ArXiV, but yet be tightly coupled to it.
What we can do on the web has been well imagined for a long time, we just don’t seem to be doing it.
The ArXiV is still running some of the original software. The core of the services has not changed radically over the past 20 years, but still, some of the original ideas that Ginsparg had all that time ago have not been widely adopted on the web of scientific communication yet. These ideas are easy to state - interactive data graphs, automated filtering and peer review, semantic markup, the end of the journal, web structured documents that go beyond print originated formats. Perhaps this revolution in scientific communication, in spite of the advance of web frameworks, is a long cycle revolution.
In spite of researcher anxiety, these tools bring real value.
Fields which slowly and cautiously adopted the preprint system have never looked back, and have prospered because of it. His point about fields where a researcher can get gazumped after announcing a result at a conference but getting tied up in the peer review system to lose out to a rival who publishes faster based on the conference result screams of a disfunction in some areas of science. It might not be a revolution that we are engaged in so much as a gently, but persistent, annealing of the system. Bring it on say I.