Saturday, February 4, 2012

Guidelines for arXiv Review

arXiv Review:

1. Each submission to arXiv has a (potential) review page (thread or section of comments and reviews) in arXiv Review.

2. Each review page is identified following the article identification scheme in References to and in arXiv Documents.

For example, the article arXiv:math/9910001v1 — refers to — could* have a review page arXiv-Review:math/9910001v1 — (abs for "abstract" in arXiv, rev for "review" in arXiv Review).

3. When a submission to arXiv achieves a level of acceptance** from the reviewers on arXiv Review, it is promoted to published status.

This can be found in a separate section of arXiv Review:<indentifier> (pub for "published").

This makes the "pub" section of arXiv Review (and its various subsections) effectively an open access journal.

This is how it works:

1. A scientist submits an article to arXiv. If they want it to be reviewed for publication they would submit a link to the article on arXiv to arXiv Review. (The article itself stays on arXiv.)

2. Comments (reviews and ratings) are opened on arXiv Review for the article.

3. When the reviewers of arXiv Review "accept" the article for publication, it is promoted to the "published" section of arXiv Review.

For example, an article in > math > math.DG that is accepted for publication by the reviewers of arXiv Review would appear in the arXiv Review Journal of Differential Geometry section of

This is to say that under > math > math.DGthere is the arXiv Review Journal of Differential Geometry, a peer-created open access journal; under > quant-ph, arXiv Review Journal of Quantum Physics; ...

This post is a continuation of the discussion in scientific journals in the e-publishing age and the discussion on Google+. (And more comments here.)

There is also a Google+ page for arXiv Review.

2012/02/07 (via comment on Google+): The organization appears like it provides publications exactly along the lines of arXiv Review Journal of <whatever subject area>. (And apparently this organization has funding and people to maintain their site. That is critical.)

In each published paper there is a link to an article: e.g.

So if this organization (or parallel organizations) could take on all of subject areas, then the process seems pretty much along the way of being resolved. (And include Journals as well as Proceedings.)

(Note in the bibtex of the above example: publisher = "Open Publishing Association". There you go!)

And more at: Community Peer Review

* could, since not every submission to arXiv may have a review page in arXiv Review
** the article rating and acceptance process is TBD


  1. Are you planning to implement this system you're designing?

  2. At this point, I am doing what I can to contribute to defining the web site I am knowledgeable of e-publishing technology but I am not a 'web site designer', and one would be needed to do all the things that needs to be done on that site: a commenting and rating system, a login for reviewers, all of that.

    The owner of the site is the owner of the arXiv Review Google+ page [ +Edward O'Callaghan ].

    There's the issue of the web site designer. And of course the issue of some team to create and maintain the site. And $ of course!

  3. The issue of funding for arXiv Review is critical of course. It would have to be supported, just like arXiv is:

    What is needed? The scientists out there who write articles who submit to arXiv and want an open journal via the arXiv Review process would have to get behind it.

  4. Heya¡­my very first comment on your site. ,I have been reading your blog for a while and thought I would completely pop in and drop a friendly note. . It is great stuff indeed. I also wanted to there a way to subscribe to your site via email?

    E Publishing