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?
Loading ...
As a matter of fact it is my impression that most astronomy arXiv authors already include information on the status of the paper and the journal it is meant to appear in. Fewer bother to explain the nature of the changes with respect to the previous version. More people would include the above information if arXiv would have special fields for these types of metadata when submitting the paper. Those, however, should not be mandatory. Another useful information to include would be if figures are color or not and, if color, whether they can be printed on b/w printers without loss of information.
Another useful piece of metadata is a link to a PDF with high-resolution graphics that authors often have to self-host. Or even a link to software for code-oriented papers; perhaps a link to the reserach group’s/survey’s site for papers with backing websites. If these meta data have an easily machine readable presentation (in JSON, say), we could start to see more innovative features in arXiv reader apps. (buzz marketing) It would help ADS to BibDesk a lot, for instance http://jsick.net/adsbibdesk (/buzz marketing).
Contributions.
Keeping track of authorial contributions (like nature now does) would go a long way towards settling authorship problems. The arxiv is the only centralized location that people want to use and could easily become the central credit repository as well as the central paper repository.