upvote
The French government put a bit of money on the table to help researchers fulfil their open science requirements for government and EU grants, and funded the HAL repository ( https://hal.science/ ). It’s much smaller than arXiv, but it exists. In other countries like the UK there are clusters of smaller repositories as well, but it’s not as well centralised.
reply
It’s so important, in fact, that there should be more than one such institution.

People keep falling into the same trap. They love monopolies, then are shocked when those monopolies jerk them around.

reply
I am using Zenodo for a while now instead. It is more user friendly, as well.
reply
Zenodo is more for IT Papers and also datasets isn't it?
reply
It can host large datasets as well, yes. It is hosted by CERN, so it is not specifically IT in any way. It also allows you to restrict access to the files of your submission. It has no requirements to submit your LaTeX sources, any PDF will be fine. There are also no restrictions on who can publish. You'll get a DOI, of course.

Everything published on arXiv could also be published on Zenodo, but not the other way around.

reply
oh interesting I didnt know this
reply
I like it as well, it works great. But I wonder if it would scale if at some point there were a massive exodus from arXiv.
reply
I think it already hosts much more data than arXiv, given that they also host large datasets.
reply
It is just a preprint repository. It is pretty open (the stories where a preprint was rejected or delayed unreasonably are extremely rare). It offers the basic services for a math/compsci/physics themed preprint repository.

I don't see much of a monopoly, nor any "moat" apart from it being recognised. You can already post preprints on a personal website or on github, and there are "alternatives" such as researchgate that can also host preprints, or zenodo. There are also some lesser known alternatives even. I do not see anything special in hosting preprints online apart from the convenience of being able to have a centralised place to place them and search for them (which you call "monopoly"). If anything, the recognisability and centrality of arxiv helped a lot the old, darker days to establish open access to papers. There was a time when many journals would not let you publish a preprint, or have all kinds of weird rules when you can and when you can't. Probably still to some degree.

reply
there is. bioarxiv.
reply
it just hosts pdfs, no?
reply
It does do a fair amount of filtering of submissions, and it's a long term archive (e.g. for the next 100+ years). I suspect both (but with the former dominating) are the issue.
reply
Just put out a torrent and people of the sort at r/DataHoarder will keep it alive for longer than bureaucrats.
reply
Well, technically, it can also compile your tex file if you upload the tex file instead of the pdf directly, which helps a lot in standardizing the stylistic structure between preprints. Most other repositories are wild west and inconsistent. I really appreciate the similarity in style applied to most preprints there. Moreover, this means you can also download not just the pdf, but the source tex file to, which can be very useful.
reply
The similarity in style comes from conference and journal templates, not from Arxiv. You can style your paper with latex in any style, Arxiv doesn't care. On Arxiv you mostly see preprints that people submit to conferences and journals and they enforce the style.
reply
Also the sources and has a very tame but useful pre-acceptance process.
reply
Technically yes, socially no.
reply