A framework for improving the accessibility of research papers on arXiv.org
Open accessAbstract
The research content hosted by arXiv is not fully accessible to everyone due to disabilities and other barriers. This matters because a significant proportion of people have reading and visual disabilities, it is important to our community that arXiv is as open as possible, and if science is to advance, we need wide and diverse participation. In addition, we have mandates to become accessible, and accessible content benefits everyone. In this paper, we will describe the accessibility problems with research, review current mitigations (and explain why they aren't sufficient), and share the results of our user research with scientists and accessibility experts. Finally, we will present arXiv's proposed next step towards more open science: offering HTML alongside existing PDF and TeX formats. An accessible HTML version of this paper is also available at https://info.arxiv.org/about/accessibility_research_report.html
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Providing an HTML version of an academic paper, alongside the PDF and TeX source, could substantially improve the accessibility of the research posted on arXiv.
“Complementarily, Brinn et al. [4] conducted user research suggesting that providing an HTML version of an academic paper, alongside the PDF and TeX source, could substantially improve the accessibility of the research posted on arXiv.”
From iTagPDF: Towards Finally Automating PDF Accessibility (2026) · cites this paper as [4]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kumar, A., & Wang, L. L. (2024) · The 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3663548.3675634 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“Malicious” Pictorials: How Alt Text Matters to Screen Reader Users' Experience of Image-Dense Media
Yin, A., Sogani, R., Oewel, B., Phan, K., Park, J. S. Y., Yeo, M. A., Yazzolino, L. A., Arcos, K., Abdolrahmani, A., Blank, E., et al. (2024) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3643834.3660747 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
iTagPDF: Towards Finally Automating PDF Accessibility
Mowar, P., Steinfeld, A., & Bigham, J. P. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790289 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Brinn, S., Cameron, C., Fielding, D., Frankston, C., Fromme, A., Huang, P., Nazzaro, M., Orphan, S., Sigurdsson, S., Tay, R., Yang, M., & Zhou, Q.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- arXiv, Cornell University
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2212.07286
- OpenAlex
- W4320858911
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2311521)
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Mathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
- Keywords
- web accessibility, arXiv, research papers, visual impairment, reading disorders, open science, access barriers, user research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
