The idea came from the observation that while the arxiv is a amazing tool, one of the problems was that the volume of papers was high and, to put it bluntly, the quality of these papers was not necessarily so great. So the question became, how do I do something to filter out the arxiv? Now, of course, everyone will want a slightly different filter. One person's noise might be indeed another persons operatic masterpeice. But there should be a way to produce at least "some" kind of filter based on the quality of the work. And certainly computers aren't smart enough to do this filtering (okay that's a challenge to all you AI people out there!) And using citations is too slow. But there is a group of experts out there who can do pretty good filtering...
[...] [E]ach day postings from the arxiv (actually only from quant-ph right now, see below) are listed onto scirate.com. If you are registered, you can then look through the listing and vote (or "Scite" as I call it) for the preprints. Then, when you display, or anyone else displays the page, the listing will be sorted by vote. So, with enough user participation, the hope is that the signal will "float" to the top. A noise filter!
So far, this only applies to the quant-ph category of the arxiv, because that's what Dave is familiar with. He hopes to extend it to other fields in the future, though, assuming this actually works in practice.
It'll be interesting to see if this takes off-- I like the idea, because looking at the raw arxiv feeds is like drinking from the proverbial firehouse. If you're interested in quantum physics and experiments in scientific publishing, go register, and vote for some good papers, and let's see if this can be made to work.
No offense to Dave, but this sounds like a truly awful idea to me. There's already enough politics when a paper ends up on the ArXiv; adding another layer just seems like a recipe for trouble.
Compared to CiteULike, this looks pretty lame, I must say.
Compared to CiteULike it is lame, of course!
The purpose, however, is different. The purpose is to "self-filter", something CiteULike doesn't (currently!) do.
Man, Chad, your readers are harsh :)
I hate this idea. This is mostly because I have no idea what the basis for voting would be. On the first day a paper appears, and in particular when I'm checking the arxiv, the only things I know about a paper are the authors, title, and abstract. I would worry very much that the voting would be based mostly on the authors. I think this is what Aaron was worried about. Also, even if people voted based only on the absract, I still don't think that would correlate completely with research quality.
Huh. I can easily see how this could go very wrong, but I am not so down on it as the other commenters seem to be. It seems to me that every one or two months, I see a paper which does significant work, but is written in a vocabulary that won't attract the people to whom it is relevant, or is redoing old problems but in a very nice, satisfying way. If the paper is squarely in my field of experience, I can often recognize this in a few hours after the arXiv mailing goes out. When this happens, I usually e-mail my friends and collaborators who I think would be interested and include a little paragraph of advertisement. If I think the paper is good enough, I will e-mail relevant list-serves. The way I would use this scirate server is to cast votes for those papers, and leave the others alone. If a few hundred people did similarly, I would find the results useful.
Lots of math and physics bloggers post in order to highlight particularly good papers on the arXiv that deserve more attention. This seems to me to serve the same role.
For the record, I am a mathematician, so maybe the physics arXiv is dramatically different in a way which I am not thinking of.