Back

**35 Years Of Science On arXiv**

In the end, I think it's the best way to communicate science at the moment. The average level of the manuscripts is quite high (at least for the section I belong) and you'll never see any fake paper since there's no point doing it.

Sometimes I think that the final solution would be to publish a manuscript to arXiv and then the reviewers (which could be all researchers already interested to read that paper) would assign a vote or propose to fix something, etc. In this way the drafts would select the reviewers automatically, not vice versa as it is now.
Maybe reviewers could have a score partly assigned by meta reviewers, partly based on the history of previous reviews.

https://www.wired.com/story/inside-arxiv-most-transformative-code-science/