Comment on: "The Preprint Evolution: The Rise of Unreviewed Drafts on arXiv and its Implications for Astronomy"

Abstract

I argue against the proposal of arXiv:2609.35787 to divide arXiv astrophysics submissions into two streams: peer-reviewed papers and pre-review discussion drafts. I contend that such a division would threaten open scientific discussion and could lead to increasingly restrictive categories based on journal impact factor or mainstream versus non-mainstream papers. Instead, readers who want only peer-reviewed work can use AI or other tools to filter papers, while others can continue monitoring the broader literature. I emphasize three benefits of posting papers on arXiv before journal acceptance. First, public posting lets researchers beyond the referee provide feedback, including identifying possible errors, missing references, and overlooked prior work, improving manuscripts beyond what a single referee may catch. Second, arXiv can help address weaknesses in the traditional anonymous peer-review system, such as lengthy delays, inconsistent reports, or unjustified rejection. Public posting establishes a transparent record of priority and allows the community to access results immediately. Finally, I propose that astrophysics journals require authors to post their papers on arXiv for at least a week before acceptance, making arXiv the central component of the astrophysical publication process.