Yes, the daly time recently is absolutely ridiculous. Been waiting on a preprint that's already been accepted in a top journal for seemingly no reason.
I'd like to see a cumulative version of that power law plot. How many papers had a delay of at least X days.
I have been bit by several inexplicable, long delays recently. In my case, I suspected the reason was choosing stat.ml as primary and cs.lg as cross-list, which, after my time in purgatory, was flipped (without asking me, of course). My choice was completely defensible.
“And here we found the culprit. The paper I was submitting belongs under cs.CY, Computers and Society, as I now know after reviewing all the categories more carefully.” I’d think the indirect cause is ai, given its recent bull/glass shop approach.
Within the cs.CY category, I only found a slight increase in delays since 2016, that seems to be well within error bars, but it could also be that my sample size was too small.
The growths of scientific papers published has been understood to be exponential since the early 50s.[0] So it really shouldn't be a surprise. Even without AI.
Just wanted to say that the plots are so nice. They perfectly balance visual noise and information density, _and_ they're aesthetically pleasing.
Yes, the daly time recently is absolutely ridiculous. Been waiting on a preprint that's already been accepted in a top journal for seemingly no reason.
I'd like to see a cumulative version of that power law plot. How many papers had a delay of at least X days.
I have been bit by several inexplicable, long delays recently. In my case, I suspected the reason was choosing stat.ml as primary and cs.lg as cross-list, which, after my time in purgatory, was flipped (without asking me, of course). My choice was completely defensible.
It's almost like peer review all over again!
With the rise of ai, ai-based papers, and ais writing terrible papers; why are you surprised or frustrated?
Wouldn’t you want some kind of barrier against slop?
If you read the article, you'll find that, surprisingly, the delay I was personally observing likely has nothing to do with AI-assisted submissions.
“And here we found the culprit. The paper I was submitting belongs under cs.CY, Computers and Society, as I now know after reviewing all the categories more carefully.” I’d think the indirect cause is ai, given its recent bull/glass shop approach.
Within the cs.CY category, I only found a slight increase in delays since 2016, that seems to be well within error bars, but it could also be that my sample size was too small.
No, I want arxiv to host the paper, not to review the paper.
I wouldn't want my google drive to start telling me my paper was too sloppy. I just want a link.
You can also just put a paper on your website (or google drive). If arXiv isn’t working for you, why submit there?
Personally, i see no problem with delays, research takes longer than a few days. Reviews take a few weeks or months even.
The growths of scientific papers published has been understood to be exponential since the early 50s.[0] So it really shouldn't be a surprise. Even without AI.
[0] https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/price/pricequantitativeme...
Hmm, I am surprised to hear it’s understood to be exponential, but thanks for the reference. I will read up on it.