Comment on: "The Preprint Evolution: The Rise of Unreviewed Drafts on arXiv and its Implications for Astronomy"
Abstract
I argue against the proposal of arXiv:2609.35787 to divide arXiv astrophysics submissions into two streams: peer-reviewed papers and pre-review discussion drafts. I contend that such a division would threaten open scientific discussion and could lead to increasingly restrictive categories based on journal impact factor or mainstream versus non-mainstream papers. Instead, readers who want only peer-reviewed work can use AI or other tools to filter papers, while others can continue monitoring the broader literature. I emphasize three benefits of posting papers on arXiv before journal acceptance. First, public posting lets researchers beyond the referee provide feedback, including identifying possible errors, missing references, and overlooked prior work, improving manuscripts beyond what a single referee may catch. Second, arXiv can help address weaknesses in the traditional anonymous peer-review system, such as lengthy delays, inconsistent reports, or unjustified rejection. Public posting establishes a transparent record of priority and allows the community to access results immediately. Finally, I propose that astrophysics journals require authors to post their papers on arXiv for at least a week before acceptance, making arXiv the central component of the astrophysical publication process.
Related
- The Preprint Evolution: The Rise of Unreviewed Drafts on arXiv and its Implications for Astronomy
- Protostellar evolution of intermediate-mass stars: Implications for the survival of fossil magnetic fields
- A niche construction-based approach to evolution by natural selection without reproduction—proof of concept and implications
- Spectral Evolution of Ceres' Surface and Implications for Space Weathering
- A time-varying speed of light and implications for the evolution of the universe, Part I: Establishing a variable light speed model
BibTeX
@misc{soker2026comment,
title = {{Comment on: "The Preprint Evolution: The Rise of Unreviewed Drafts on arXiv and its Implications for Astronomy"}},
author = {Noam Soker},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2610.02273},
eprint = {2610.02273},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02273},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Comment on: "The Preprint Evolution: The Rise of Unreviewed Drafts on arXiv and its Implications for Astronomy"
AU - Noam Soker
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2610.02273
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02273
AB - I argue against the proposal of arXiv:2609.35787 to divide arXiv astrophysics submissions into two streams: peer-reviewed papers and pre-review discussion drafts. I contend that such a division would threaten open scientific discussion and could lead to increasingly restrictive categories based on journal impact factor or mainstream versus non-mainstream papers. Instead, readers who want only peer-reviewed work can use AI or other tools to filter papers, while others can continue monitoring the broader literature. I emphasize three benefits of posting papers on arXiv before journal acceptance. First, public posting lets researchers beyond the referee provide feedback, including identifying possible errors, missing references, and overlooked prior work, improving manuscripts beyond what a single referee may catch. Second, arXiv can help address weaknesses in the traditional anonymous peer-review system, such as lengthy delays, inconsistent reports, or unjustified rejection. Public posting establishes a transparent record of priority and allows the community to access results immediately. Finally, I propose that astrophysics journals require authors to post their papers on arXiv for at least a week before acceptance, making arXiv the central component of the astrophysical publication process.
ER -