...
The combination of multiple choice responses (see Appendix B) and the extensive and thoughtful open text comments pinpointed areas that need to be upgraded and enhanced. Improving the search function emerged as a top priority as the users expressed a great deal of frustration with the limited search capabilities currently available, especially in author searches. Providing better support for submitting and linking research data, code, slides and other materials associated with papers emerged as another important service to expand. Regardless of their subject area, users were in agreement about the importance of continuing to implement quality control measures, such as checking for text overlap, correct classification of submissions, rejection of papers without much scientific value, and asking authors to fix format-related problems. Several users commented on the need to randomize the order of new papers in announcements and mailings. There were several useful remarks about the need to improve the endorsement system and provide more information about the moderation process.
...
- The vast majority of arXiv’s users access the papers directly from the homepage (79%), followed by using Google to search (50%) and Google Scholar (35%).
- Once on the homepage, reactions were mixed regarding the ease of use and navigation. 32% rated this as easy, but only 25% find it somewhat easy and 21.6% rated it somewhat difficult to use.
- To discover content, 63% of users go to the link for new or recent under a particular category and equally 63% of users use arXiv’s search engine and enter a specific arXiv ID, author name or search term. A small number of users, 14%, rely on the daily mailing list and then look for a particular article in the search field.
- In the open text comments, opinion was divided about the user interface. The majority of respondents disliked the outdated style, but a definite subgroup appreciated the interface’s simplicity, which these users feel helps arXiv efficiently carry out its mission. The main issues mentioned aside from the homepage’s look were the number of links, layout and finding submission information. The lack of hierarchy in organization was found challenging to understanding arXiv’s navigation.
- Requests for enhancements related to UX included greater personalization of arXiv for readers; for example, the ability to “favorite” papers, curate a personal library, and see recommendations when users visit the site. Other users mentioned the development of APIs to further facilitate the development of overlay journals. Some users also suggested the development of a mobile-friendly version.
- Many commenters either described how they rely on other services to interact with arXiv content (site-specific searches, ADS, INSPIRE) or recommended features based on their experience with other information systems. Among those frequently praised were ADS, INSPIRE, Google Scholar, gitxiv.com and arxiv-sanity.com.
APPENDIX A
...
: DEMOGRAPHICS OF RESPONDENTS
I use arXiv in the following ways: (Please choose all that apply)
...
Other Countries: 1% or less representation each from 113 countries
APPENDIX B: OPINIONS ON ARXIV'S CURRENT SERVICES & FUTURE DIRECTIONS
How important is it to improve on the following CURRENT arXiv services?
...