There are several meta-arxiv projects that collect commnets and reviews about articles on the arxiv. One that I like is called selectedpapers.net; at the moment it only scans Google+, but Twitter's in the works and I can't imagine Facebook won't be far behind. Any post that's marked #spnetwork followed by the arxiv reference (something like arXiv:math/1304.6910) will be picked up and displayed on the corresponding article page, which looks exactly like the arxiv page plus comments. For example, here are some comments about a paper on Graham's number: https://selectedpapers.net/arxiv/1304.6910 Here's the documentation for the project: http://docs.selectedpapers.net/intro.html http://about.eptcs.org/ is an open-access journal that is implemented entirely as an arxiv overlay. Terrence Tao and Timothy Gowers (Fields medalists) are working with http://episciences.org/ to set up a platform that makes it easy to start arxiv overlays. On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Warren D Smith <warren.wds@gmail.com> wrote:
Message: 7 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:41:46 +0200 From: Joerg Arndt <arndt@jjj.de> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [math-fun] zeta(5) -- and all zeta(odd) -- irrational??? Message-ID: <20131022144146.GB19908@jjj.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: http://oeis.org/A013663
In a widely distributed May 2011 email, Wadim Zudilin gave a rebuttal to v1 of Kim's 2011 preprint: "The mistake (unfixable) is on p. 6, line after eq. (3.3). 'Without loss of generality' can be shown to work only for a finite set of n_k's; as the n_k are sufficiently large (and N is fixed), the inequality for epsilon is false." In a May 2013 email, Zudilin extended his rebuttal to cover v2, concluding that Kim's argument "implies that at least one of zeta(2), zeta(3), zeta(4) and zeta(5) is irrational, which is trivial." - Jonathan Sondow, May 06 2013
--yeah, I thought it had to be bullshit. But the thing is, no retraction has been posted even 2 years later, and not only that, if the ArXiv had a commenting facility, this could have been commented by somebody besides the uncooperative author, but no.
In short: THE ARXIV SUCKS.
I have complained to them for 10-20 years they needed to add commenting and rating, and they always to me to go chew a log. They have the capability to make this have far better refereeing than any journal has ever had, but instead chose intentionally to make it have no refereeing. It is absurd. I think this is an intentional conspiracy to support obsolete ultra-expensive journals, supported by big money and big egos -- what is actually useful for humanity be damned. They have lost 20 years for all of humanity by their idiocy.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Mike Stay - metaweta@gmail.com http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~mike http://reperiendi.wordpress.com