arXiv vs PubMed — Discipline
How rigorously each source backs its factual claims with verifiable evidence.
PubMed outscores arXiv on Citation Discipline by 18 points (A+ · 96 vs B · 78).
arXiv
Moderation-only filter (not peer-review). Endorsement system catches obvious quality issues; substantive review is downstream.
PubMed
Indexes peer-reviewed literature only; MeSH controlled-vocabulary tagging maintained by NLM staff.
Global rank · Discipline
Why these Discipline scores
Moderation-only filter (not peer-review). Endorsement system catches obvious quality issues; substantive review is downstream.
Indexes peer-reviewed literature only; MeSH controlled-vocabulary tagging maintained by NLM staff.
Signals behind the Discipline score
- Endorsement systemNew submitters need an endorsement from an established author.
- Pre-peer-reviewPapers may be revised, retracted, or never published in journals.
- MeSH headingsSubject indexing curated by NLM editorial staff.
- Peer review filterOnly journals passing NLM selection criteria are indexed.
Other dimensions for arXiv vs PubMed
Other Discipline comparisons
Sources & references
Every score on this page is read from the two publications below and graded against the published rubric. No score is bought, estimated or supplied by the source being scored.
- Source evaluated — arXiv (arxiv.org) · verified · full scoring record
- Source evaluated — PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) · verified · full scoring record
- Scoring rubric — SourceScore Index, Citation Discipline, Modern Reference, Citation Velocity (methodology v0.1)
- Machine-readable record — /api/compare/arxiv-vs-pubmed/discipline.json