Over the past couple of years, lay people and other lay people have read references to “bioRxiv” and “medRxiv” in news stories about the Covid-19 pandemic, frequently described as “preprint servers.”
bioRxiv and medRxiv, which have played an invaluable role in rapidly disseminating scientific research findings on the coronavirus to physicians, scientists and healthcare decision makers around the world, were inspired by arXiv.org, the original preprint server that published its two millionth paper – a numerical analysis titled “Affine Iterations and the Packing Effect: Various Approaches” – earlier this month.
arXiv – pronounced “archive” because the “X” stands for “chi”, the 22nd letter of the Greek alphabet – is a massive online repository of research that physicists, astronomers, computer scientists and mathematicians, among others, find essential.
For more than 30 years
arXiv “started in 1989 as a mailing list for a few dozen string theorists,” according to a lengthy profile published Jan. 10 in Scientific American magazine. In 1991, physicist Paul Ginsparg, then a member of the technical staff at Los Alamos National Laboratory, automated his colleague Joanne Cohn’s mailing list, turning it into a repository anyone could access or submit to, says the item.
Thus was born arXiv, to which no less than 500,000 articles had been submitted in 2008. It took only six years until 2014 for that number to double to one million, and another seven years to double again.
Ginsparg is now at Cornell University, where arXiv is also legally located. Cohn, whose exchange of string theory manuscripts seeded the idea for arXiv, is at UC Berkeley.
Fast and free
Although material published on arXiv is not peer-reviewed, it allows the wider research community to quickly and freely disseminate their findings pending peer review. The research could appear online within a day of submission, compared to perhaps several months in traditional journals. This also goes for the life science preprint servers bioRxiv and medRxiv – and has made an immense contribution to accelerating biomedical research in the literally life-and-death situation of the pandemic.
“It’s like the backbone of our field,” said the Scientific American article quoting Alex Kohls, head of CERN’s Scientific Information Service. “It’s not just a tool for physicists and computer scientists – it’s impacted the whole process of scholarly communication.”
Scientific American cited the work of Lanu Kim, who conducted a study that found that authors of highly cited arXiv papers were increasingly likely not to publish at all in a traditional journal. Kim’s team, according to the article, found that journals still had a significant impact on citations, but now looked more like curators than major disseminators of research.
But there are also problems. arXiv acknowledges the support of the New York-based Simons Foundation and a large number of academic and research institutions around the world, but is still lacking in resources. A small paid team helps volunteer moderators manage up to 1,200 submissions each day, according to the Scientific American article. “We are understaffed and underfunded – and have been for years,” said the article quoting Steinn Sigurdsson, the scientific director of arXiv.
The article also flagged concerns about some of arXiv’s moderation policies, quoting, among others, physicist Deepak Vaid of Karnataka’s National Institute of Technology, Surathkal: “They are taking steps that seem to go to contrary to what the role of a preprint server should be.” Dr. Vaid, according to the article, pointed to “inconsistent moderation and a lack of transparency.”
Newsletter | Click to get the best explainers of the day delivered to your inbox