Show HN: HackerNews but for research papers

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Overall reaction to the concept

  • Many commenters like the idea of a Hacker News–style site for research papers and say it’s “a thing that should exist.”
  • Several report they’ve been wanting something similar or had previously built similar projects that struggled to gain traction.
  • Some see it as especially useful for non-academics or ex-academics who want visibility into current research without living on arXiv or Twitter.
  • Others are skeptical that researchers want an algorithmic “feed” of papers; they typically search with specific questions in mind.

Scope, focus, and community-building

  • Multiple commenters argue the site is too broad; suggest starting with a narrow niche (e.g., AI/ML, computer vision, FPGAs, PL, or a single field) and building a small expert community first.
  • There’s tension between serving career scientists (who have little time and need depth) vs. a broader audience (who may only want high-level summaries).
  • Some propose curated “most important papers” lists per field and expert-driven sections.
  • Concerns raised that most papers are niche and low-ROI to read; recommendation to lean on AI-generated summaries plus discussion of those.

UX, UI, and accessibility

  • Strong, repeated complaints about mobile: layout breaking, horizontal overflow, comment view issues, spacing, sort dropdown click bugs.
  • Text contrast and readability widely criticized; titles and nav links are too light and hard to skim.
  • Requests for a simpler, HN-like aesthetic (even “just HN with a different color”) and better information density preservation.
  • Several users note the site requires JavaScript, unlike HN, and ask for at least basic no-JS functionality.

Features and data sources

  • Common requests:
    • Tags, topics, and sub-categories (including CS, EE, bio, chem, health, history, law, etc.).
    • Search (by title, author, DOI, venue, keywords) and the ability to filter/subscribe to topics.
    • RSS feeds, “top rated” default sort, lists like HN’s, and sorting by newest.
    • Linking to arXiv abs pages (not direct PDFs), Google Scholar, and showing journal/venue info.
    • AI-generated ~100-word summaries, with community-editable corrections.
    • LaTeX support in titles and comments; PubPeer integration; pulling signals from GitHub, Hugging Face, other hype trackers.

Technical and infrastructure issues

  • Many sign-up/login problems: email rate limits, confirmation errors, 400s, browser-specific failures.
  • Site currently scrapes arXiv; pagination is inefficient (fetching all items client-side).
  • Some corporate and campus networks block .xyz domains; several suggest moving to .com.

Meta: moderation and scholarly discourse

  • Users stress that moderation quality will determine whether it stays high-signal like HN or degrades.
  • Debate over whether linear, tree-based comments are suitable for scientific discussion; ideas include DAG-like structures and richer referencing between comments.
  • Some doubt such forums can work for the vast majority of “mundane” papers, but see value for high-profile or cross-disciplinary work.