The arXiv administrator team handles the 500-600 new article submissions that come into arXiv every day (double that on Mondays). When a user sends a paper to arXiv it goes through a series of checks to detect technical issues with the paper and also to make sure it meets our moderation standards. The administrators shepherd this process by responding to automated technical flags and communicating with our volunteer moderators who consider the classification and quality aspects of articles. We are also sending a constant stream of email to users in response to their questions or if we find issues with their papers.
In addition to those new papers, we have 300-400 daily submissions that update existing papers, either for replacement versions, journal references, or withdrawal requests. Each of those types of submissions are also checked to make sure they are well formed and appropriate.
Working on a system that has evolved over 25 years involves a workaround or two and different components working in parallel to complete some tasks. We jump from our user support email, to our submission discussion system used by moderators, to perl scripts for metadata and postscript fixes, to debugging LaTeX.
100% of the submissions are sent through our automated checks. We also eyeball the metadata for every submission. Typically around 15% of submissions get ‘fixed’ with some human curation, either cleaning up the metadata, classification changes by our moderators, or asking the user to fix technical issues. A small portion of submissions end up getting rejected from arXiv. It is one of those jobs where the vast majority of our effort is spent on a fairly small number of problem submissions. For most arXiv users our work, and that of our 160 volunteer moderators, is invisible. We get emails everyday from authors who are surprised to find out that not only can papers be delayed but that their own paper has been held up.
While our goal is rapid dissemination and to address all issues in a single day there are a variety of reasons why papers may be delayed. Some submissions just need an extra day or two for our volunteer moderators to look them over. Some raise challenging questions that we discuss at our weekly team meetings and may involve extensive discussion with our moderators.
For especially complex technical, policy or legal questions we can tap other members of the arXiv team. We work closely with Gail Steinhart, Cornell Scholarly Communication Librarian and arXiv Program Associate, on author disputes, developing best practices for user support, user engagement/testing, and researching copyright questions. We chat daily with arXiv’s developers for user reported bugs or to help answer user questions about bulk data access. Challenging policy issues may escalate to Steinn Sigurdsson, our Scientific Director.
On a daily basis the work has a mix of the fascinating and the mundane. We repeatedly see the same issues over and over, such as the author not noticing that their references did not appear to compile correctly in the final PDF (likely because they tried to upload references in bib format rather than bbl). While much of the technical help we provide, such as fixing TeX errors is routine, we also get some zingers that are fun to dive into and figure out. We also get drawn into challenging situations. We continually facilitate discussions with moderators and authors about what is ‘acceptable for arXiv’, professional ethics, scientific discourse, and arXiv moderation standards and transparency.
What is the arXiv admin team up to today? Amanda Bartley, arXiv Administrator, is working on user support. She had a hum dinger this morning of disentangling user accounts for what turned out to be an unauthorized proxy submitter which is against arXiv policy. Rebecca Goldweber, arXiv Associate Administrator, has been responding to system flags and following the moderator discussions, including a rare case where moderators from different subject areas both thought the paper best fit into their field. Jake Weiskoff, Senior arXiv Administrator, has over time become our resident TeX-spert . He has been debugging papers and working on a project to improve our process for fixing TeX accents in the metadata.
One of the big motivators for our team is the exciting developments in the communities we serve. We get caught up in the buzz of discovery as it happens. There is great sense of connection and commitment that comes from working alongside arXiv’s 170 moderators who volunteer their time and expertise every day for the benefit of arXiv users. We also have professional interest in the evolving communication needs of the scientists. In our desire to continually improve arXiv as a tool for the community we are thrilled by the major upgrades underway to arXiv’s infrastructure. We have an extensive wish list for improving the system and many feature requests from users that were not feasible in our legacy system but are making their way into planned updates.
arXiv Operations Manager