Browsing the most recent postings on ArXiv, the most common information included in the “Comments” field includes the number of pages, number of figures and tables, and the status (submitted/accepted) of the paper. Many people do not include the any of the meta data. K.M. wrote to AstroBetter wondering what could be done to encourage people to include such meta data.
K.M. says that such meta data (embedded either in “Comments” or “Journal reference” fields) would tell the reader about the scope and intended audience of the paper. It would clearly state whether the paper is a journal article, a random document, or conference proceeding which is a modified/updated version of a previous or forthcoming journal article. One should not have to download the PDF to find out any of this information.
ArXiv has largely replaced journal websites as our primary source of new papers. Few of us wait for the paper to appear in print, either electronic or paper, to read it. The inclusion of meta data greatly enhances the ArXiv experience. We would know what we are diving into when downloading and reading a paper. We would not re-read a conference proceeding that is a slight update on the paper that was published two months ago.
Astronomers seem to be much more likely to download and read papers that are nicely formatted with appropriately placed figures and tables. Based on the comments in that post, we also seem to value reader experience and are willing to invest our time to improve that experience. We would like our papers to be read, after all.
Why not extend that and include meta data when we post our papers to ArXiv? Currently, there is no standard or policy as to the inclusion of meta data. Should ArXiv create a policy that requires meta data? Realistically, it should not take much time to include the meta data.
So how much attention do you pay to the meta data (“comments”)? Which information do you think should be included?