arXiv is a part of the scholarly scientific community, and we strive to participate in and adapt to the changing needs of the community. Recently, we have been discussing whether arXiv should consider hosting short works, which include research discoveries, results or data without context or interpretation and do not conform to accepted standards conventional, peer-reviewed journals.
It is important to keep in mind arXiv‘s goals, mission, and scope, and how arXiv achieves these for the community. arXiv provides e-prints, including preprints and author’s version of accepted manuscripts, in specific scientific disciplines. We expect submissions to arXiv to be topical and refereeable scientific contributions that follow accepted standards of scholarly communication, as exemplified by conventional mainstream journal articles. Therefore, submission should be self-contained, in the sense that they can be read and understood without excessive reference to other papers, and have sufficient, non-trivial original content, including original research or useful new exposition of existing results (i.e. review article).
These are subjective criteria, and so our moderation process evaluates the suitability and value of submissions to our arXiv communities. We rely heavily on the expertise and judgement of 168 volunteer moderators and the quality control of our staff who review submissions and address correspondence. Together, they handle about 21% of our annual 140,000 submissions, which has exponentially increased by about 30% every year . If we were to modify our scope of acceptable material and accept short works in bulk, the submission rate could potentially greatly increase to a level that arXiv cannot sustain with its current structure and resources.
Therefore, given arXiv’s goals, mission, and resources, arXiv cannot actively or explicitly encourage submissions of short works and similar types of material.
However, at arXiv, we value the importance of embracing and supporting scientific communication innovations, and we want to explore how we can support new forms. So, for the next 12 months, short, unrefereed submissions that have passed the checks of being a research article will proceed through the moderation process. In practice, it will mean that these short submissions will be placed “on hold” and not appear until approved by a moderator. Depending on the moderator load, the hold time will vary, from being not appreciable to the user to multiple days. There will be no change to how standard-length submissions are handled.
After the 12-month trial period we will assess the situation and evaluate if any changes are necessary. However, given currently allocated resources for arXiv and our moderators, if this process becomes unsustainable we will prematurely end it. While this may be disappointing, we have to bear in mind that our priority is the core mission and operations, so any new experiment cannot happen to the detriment of these top priorities.
What does “unsustainable” mean in practice?
An unsustainable process for arXiv means that too much effort is required by moderators to keep up with the submissions and appeals volume; symptoms and warning signs will include a growing “hold” queue. We will remain vigilant in monitoring the process and hope users appreciate this effort and cooperate with arXiv in this experiment.
How can I cooperate?
- Before submitting a short work to arXiv, consider if it meets the criteria of a research article. Does it meet the criteria of a research article, either refereeable or self-contained with sufficient non-trivial new content? It should contain research discoveries, results or data with context or interpretation.
- If you submitted something and it was put “on hold” please be patient. Remember: our moderators are doing their best, but they have volunteered their limited time and resources.
- If you submitted something and it was removed, carefully read the accompanying message and understand that there is limited ability of administrators and moderators to provide feedback on submissions that are determined to be inappropriate for arXiv. You will need to consider if you would like to put in the effort required to make the submission better aligned with arXiv main scope.
Thank you for your cooperation.