Personally, this issue has been the biggest obstacle when the weekly [arXiv] is posted. Reading 40-60 abstracts daily always met time constraints. Sometimes, I take a tactic of reading titles and abstracts from the bottom not to skip bottom ones but it’s quite challenging to read abstracts without any break, then I lost my cutoff to continue my backward reading. After many months, actually, I thought about stop reviewing all abstracts from [astro-ph] but get one relevant preprint from the top a few times a month. Now, I felt like someone hit me behind.

As the author suggested, it’ll be better that [astro-ph] is subcategorized; for example, theory, observation, and data analysis; planets, stars, and extended sources (distance based subcategorizing would be needed); multi-wavelengths, gamma-ray, X-ray, UV, optical, IR, and radio; and other classes of subcategories. Like other fields, cross listing will help if the topic cross different subcategories.

I’m not sure how often people feel my [arXiv] is useful. Obviously it’s shorter than astro-ph but the subject is limited to (personally thought) astrostatistics. Giving 5-15 papers may be too many to read. Instead of [arXiv], reviews of short papers or tutorial type papers from statistical journals for astronomers are better suited. Please, send me your feedbacks.