Is AI killing scientific reform? — UlrikeHahn

"Evidence exists, though, to suggest that publication decisions are surprisingly poor indicators of scientific quality [1, 2]. This has fuelled interest in alternative models of publication, such as post-publication peer review [3,4], and the development of online tools and infrastructure to support it [e.g., PubPeer 5, 6]. Basically, the idea is to let authors put their research out there, and then let subsequent scrutiny by the field do the rest.

Now what does my experience with arXiv have to do with this? The part that’s the problem in arXiv’s rejection email is the rationale that the submission “does not contain sufficient original or substantive scholarly research”. That is precisely what scrutiny by peers is meant to assess, and pre-prints are designed to allow that to happen openly and quickly. That is their entire point."