The End of
Formal Publication

What I learned from posting a full research paper on my blog

August 2025

Recently, I published a full research paper on my blog. In this article, I want to reflect on why I made that decision and its implications for academic publishing in general.

How It All Started

One day, while driving slowly on the road, an idea struck me as if some higher existence had pushed it into my mind. I soon found the idea interesting enough to warrant a dedicated research paper.

Then, I started to consider where to publish it. Surprisingly, I decided to put it on my blog, which is quite contrary to the hype surrounding top-tier conferences for anyone with a Ph.D.

I'm not the only one making this choice. In fact, this is a growing trend in AI research. Many impactful works are not first published at prestigious venues. To understand why, we first need to consider why people want to publish at these venues.

Why People Publish at Prestigious Venues

The main reason is reputation. People want recognition for their academic contributions. The more people want to publish at a venue, the more reputable it becomes. Thus, the reputation of top venues is self-reinforcing and persistent.

To maintain this reputation, peer review is essential. It ensures the quality of published work and recognizes the achievements of those who publish there. There seems to be no alternative way to gain such quality recognition, so people continue to seek publication at these venues.

Because of this quality assurance, publishing at top venues has become an "academic currency" used for funding applications, evaluating research progress, and meeting Ph.D. graduation requirements.

However, all these aspects mainly ensure a lower bound on publication quality. The highest-impact work does not benefit much from these features.

The most impactful work sees conferences as a way to distribute their findings to the community. The best work is recognized by the community itself; it doesn't need a top venue to prove its quality. Authors want to amplify their impact by connecting with the community at conferences, through presentations and discussions.

The Rise of arXiv

If top conferences are so valuable, why do people still publish on arXiv? The advantages mainly stem from the removal of the peer-review process (though peer endorsements are still required) the very process upon which top conference reputations are built. Here’s what this change brings:

First, it drastically reduces the publication time cycle. Peer review takes time: reviewers need to read and comment, and authors must revise their work based on feedback, which requires significant effort and time. With arXiv, researchers can disseminate their latest findings quickly and claim priority.

As a reviewer, I often felt I lacked the expertise to fully understand and judge the papers assigned to me, yet I was expected to provide suggestions. Some of my suggestions may not have improved the work.

Second, arXiv frees authors from writing for reviewers. To get accepted, authors often focus on what reviewers might think, which can influence how they conduct and present their work. Without the fear of rejection, authors can:

Propose simple, elegant solutions to hard problems instead of making things unnecessarily complex.
Tackle important, forward-looking problems rather than sticking to well-established topics.
Be more honest and explicit about the limitations of their work.

Does arXiv lose any advantages compared to top conferences? Absolutely:

There is no face-to-face interaction with the community.
There is no official recognition of quality.
No "academic currency" is earned for funding or graduation.

However, for the most impactful work, these disadvantages may not matter much. Or, authors can post on arXiv first and submit to a top conference later.

Posting Research on Blogs

A newer trend is emerging: people are posting formal and important research papers on blogs, such as the OpenAI o1 system card. Is arXiv not good enough for modern research publication? I found a few disadvantages of arXiv compared to blogs.

arXiv has only lowered the requirements from peer-reviewed to peer-endorsed. Everything else remains similar to traditional academic publishing. It is optimized for printed reading, not for online reading on desktops or mobile devices. Tools like LaTeX are great for print layout but less so for web experiences.

arXiv has noticed this problem, which is why they started the HTML project to convert PDFs into web pages. Here is their official example of an HTML-format paper. Still, it is not as good as a modern webpage optimized for reading.

Publishing research as a blog post makes it much easier to share and read on the go. You can even make it interactive using the latest JavaScript and CSS technologies.

Does blogging lose any advantages compared to arXiv? Absolutely:

It is non-archival. It's hard for people to cite a specific version.
There is almost no quality assurance, and thus no recognition of quality.

Again, for the most impactful work, these disadvantages may not matter. Or, authors can post on a blog and arXiv simultaneously, and submit to a top conference later.

Summary

The landscape of research publication is rapidly evolving. Top conferences offer reputation, peer review, and academic recognition, but impose lengthy cycles and rigid formats. arXiv lowers barriers, enabling faster dissemination and more author freedom, but at the cost of official recognition and community interaction. Blogs go further, maximizing accessibility and interactivity, yet sacrificing archival stability and quality assurance. Ultimately, the most impactful work may prioritize reach and influence over formal recognition, leveraging all these platforms to maximize their contribution to the community.