Show HN: HackerNews but for research papers (papertalk.xyz)
Hey guys, I love HN! I wanted to extend the same aesthetic and community towards things beyond tech-related news.
I thought it would be cool to get the same quality of community gathered around the latest and greatest research coming out.
Let me know what you guys think of what I have so far. It's still early so there are probably bugs and other quality issues.
If there's any features missing that you'd want let me know.
ALSO, if any of you are familiar with the map of the territory of any particular field, please let me know! Would love to pick your brain and to come up with a 'most important papers' section for each field.
Thank you!!
-stefan
208 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 239 ms ] threadSmall bit of feedback: would it be possible to make the UI a bit more mobile friendly? Or, alternatively, is there an API that others could use to build different interfaces?
Again, this is a Thing That Should Exist, so thank you for bringing it into the world.
I went to the page, scanned the list to find something that has comments, but everything is listed as "0 Comments". I clicked on "Comments" for the AGI paper, but nothing happens -- it's not a link. There's no "Discuss" link. On HN clicking on the paper title opens the upstream link, not comments, but on your site I discovered that it opens the discussion page. Once there at https://www.papertalk.xyz/papers/2404.10731v1, I noticed that there are in fact 3 comments, but the comments counter at the top still says "0". The comments are also just random gibberish.
I hope you iterate on this project and that it gets massive traction!
Also, everything is listed as "0 points" which I found it weird, how would then the ranking work? HN gives 1 point to every story submitted.
I’ve often seen papers have a list of keywords somewhere on the first page that could be helpful for indexing
To capture the most popular topics, you can grab the topics of the top N most attended academic conferences as a starting point
[1] https://huggingface.co/models?sort=trending
[2] https://hype.replicate.dev/
[3] https://github.com/trending
It can be hard to sift through the all the random papers on Arxiv or something, but I do try my best to keep up with current research. Obviously I don't have the time or ability to read every single paper (much as I wish I could!), but I do try and at least read the abstract, introduction, and conclusion to CS papers that are relevant to me, though the "relevant to me" part can be hard to figure out a lot of the time.
Having an "HN-like" experience for research papers could really help with that, I love the idea!
Out of curiosity, what did you build this in? Since I do think this has potential to get to HN-levels of success in the academic world, have you thought about scaling?
UI Request: Make the font darker. That light font on a light background is extremely hard to read.
The top level view seems to leave a bit too much margins on mobile.
- read arXiv (the algorithm there is pretty simple, but it's a feed of sorts), or
- follow twitter accounts to learn about new results
So, like it or not, a lot of people are getting their feed from algorithms.
I'd consider twitter a feed, and one driven by a proprietary algorithm at that. I'm not sure if it's better or worse to have the interest of these academics guided by a company like twitter, but maybe having some other options is good.
I like the idea of subcategories. Some notes on the experience:
This is a community project. Try to get a few people on one niche who know what they are talking about commenting on your site actively (This HN post may help you find those people!). If your site became good at computer vision, the field in which I work professionally, I'd be there every day.FYI. I tried signing up. Got: "Email rate limit exceeded"
?
Yes, Emergent Mind is 100% focused on AI/ML papers from arXiv. I think it makes more sense to focus on a niche because you can tailor everything to that niche, vs creating a general research paper site which won't wind up speaking to any audience well.
For anyone curious about Emergent Mind: it surfaces trending AI/ML papers by monitoring social media (HackerNews, Reddit, X, YouTube, and GitHub) for discussions about papers, then ranks them based on the amount of engagement they're getting (similar to how HackerNews uses upvotes). Then, for all trending papers, it automatically summarizes them using GPT-4o and links to relevant discussions so you can learn more.
We're working on a bunch of new capabilities that we'll announce soon too.
Feedback welcome: matt@emergentmind.com
- some database like arXiv for most all the results, obviously mirrored a few places
- multiple frontends like this!
- no more journals: replace journal review with an endorsement from a similar organization, on the arXiv (or similar) page
Thanks for taking one of the required steps to making this possible!
And don't get me started on the price for publication and for readers that supposedly fund this "detailed peer review process" that misses so many obvious flaws.
The peer review process is still needed, but I would love to see it be more public. I've been wanting this exact thing for years. A simple comment section of the average readers and their thoughts.
Pubpeer.com + browser plugin
Journals have been publishing "responses" for ages, so there always has been a "comment section" of sorts. But it could be so much easier!
Personally I haven't really seen or been involved in a response. It would not surprise me if that tradition is dying because it's so much easier to comment somewhere on the internet where some people will see it. But of course without an official endorsement from the journal / preprint server / whatever, it's hard to know which forum you should direct your response to.
I don't like how software has to be actively maintained to be usable or taken serious but the results are hard to question.
Moderating some kind of "official" internet forum for papers will require a lot of time, and most researchers won't bother to follow it, because messages will be of low value, from crackpots and occasional ill-spirited anonymous commenters.
In 2016 arXiv run a survey about new features. Comment section, votes on submissions etc. were not popular. Many people were against this stuff, so it was not implemented.
There have been projects like PubPeer that tried to explore this territory and never really took off.
I see a value in a website like HN with links to papers of bigger interest and discussions for the general public.
E.g. someone posts a link to a new publication/preprint about cancer research, a supposed superconductor discovery, massive high energy physics experiments, etc. and users are free to discuss the meaning, beauty, impact, and credibility of the results.
But I'm not sure if this can work for mundane papers that are >99% of published research. I also think it will be much harder to market to the researchers. As someone who read, wrote, reviewed papers.
Readers don't fund the peer review process. People on the editorial board and peer reviewers do their job as a community service and have nothing to do with the inflated subscription prices.
Yours looks too nice for my use case honestly :) Weird complement but I really do like how it looks, you did a good job.