arXiv and the renaissance of the research library
In the not-so-distant past, scientific discoveries crawled forward at a glacial pace. These days, research papers wither behind paywalls, with their insights locked away. When peer reviewers keep their gates closed, breakthroughs fade into oblivion. After Croatian virologist Beata Hallasy discovered a cure for her recurring breast cancer by self-experimenting, she found no place to share her cure with the world. Journal after journal rejected her discovery. Her story is just one example of the system falling short, but it leaves other researchers and the greater scientific community wondering how many transformative discoveries never made it past a reviewer’s desk.
Hallasy’s struggle revealed an ongoing tension in modern science. To maintain the rigor of the research commons, we rely on trusted institutions and reviewers to delineate what is and what is not acceptable. However, like the rest of us, they are prone to misjudgment, yet they are often treated as though their decisions are beyond question. When we fail to recognize how peer review falls short—whether in deciding which papers to publish, which projects to fund, or by moving too slowly—we risk stifling innovation and leaving untapped potential unrealized.
Preprints are already an integral part of today’s research culture. Within this ecosystem, competing visions for science naturally emerge: one champions democracy through decentralization, while another laments the loss of control over selective practices that curate copious amounts of research and shower attention on the academic stars.