There are vast areas of research where every credible paper gets posted to the arxiv. So even though being on the arxiv does not imply credibility, not being on the arxiv implies lack thereof.

I can vouch for this. Lots of theoretical physics on there (in fact, I would say the majority of it). Whether stuff is posted on arXiv highly depends on the field.

I'm incredulous of:

>There are vast areas of research where every credible paper gets posted to the arxiv

due to your word "every" which from context you mean literally; no exceptions. So, what would these vast areas of research be? The statement would not be true for any areas of research I know about.

EDIT: Thanks for the replies - fascinating. That in certain fields, no paper is worth reading if not on arxiv.

High-energy physics. Yes, literally every paper that's worth your time is on arxiv first. The only time anyone reads from an actual peer-reviewed journal is when something that was on arxiv eventually gets published (you know, a year later) and might have minor corrections. And I don't know a single person that picks up journals for those crucial papers that were never posted to arxiv.

What's the point of "formal peer-review", anyway? If you're in the community you talk to your colleagues about what's on arxiv and you know what's good and what isn't. You don't need a journal to tell you.

For the areas I used to work in for many years, high energy physics and quantum gravity, I can't think of a single exception.

Of course I don't have total knowledge of these fields, only my corner of them, and I'm sure you'll find a counterexample if you dig deep enough, but if counterexamples are remarkable and rare, then the heuristic: "Not on the arxiv, not likely to be credible" stands.

I will add that astrophysics is the same way. I'm not aware of a single paper I've come across from the last 15 years that isn't on the arxiv.

I would say that yes, if a project is on github (or any other openly accessible platform) it greatly adds to the credibility of said project. Just like papers that are early-released on arvix it allows me to form an opinion about it and more importantly allows more intelligent people than me to read the code and draw conclusions which I can then lean on.

So in other words...what's the downside of publishing on arvix? You can also send it to a peer reviewed journal.

Arxiv is not for all,it is only authors vouched by other members. It is a very weak form of peer review.

Arxiv is pretty much for all. What you call vouching is just endorsement, and it's not peer review at all.

what I got Googling 'pseudoscience arxiv' - http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+marvin+herndon/0/1/0/al...

These titles wouldn't even make it past HN's front page, they would be flagged - by lay people with no background.

Let me emphasize: arxiv is not peer-reviewed, it is an open publication platform.

Out of the above list, I only clicked through one - http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510090 reading "Teaching Earth Dynamics: What's Wrong with Plate Tectonics Theory?"

Quote:

"I review what is wrong with plate tectonics theory ... and describe my new Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics Theory, which unifies the two previous, dominant theories in a self-consistent manner. Along the way, I disclose details of what real science is all about, details all too often absent in textbooks and classroom discussions."

This wouldn't make it past a HN reader. "I disclose details of what real science is all about." No peer would ever accept that, in any journal on any subject.