cosmo-ph?

[Antony Lewis]

Sounds like a good idea, try it now. Probably a matter of taste how obvious you like the highlighting to be.

[Constantinos Skordis]

I agree with Jochen.
In any case it just takes a minute or so to browse through
the existing archiv and see if there are papers of interest.
Plus it leaves more room for procrastination

[Simeon Warner]

Just thought I'd jump in an speak from the arXiv perspective.

We have had complaints for a long time that astro-ph is too large . We are in the process of deciding, with the help of the physics advisory board, how to split astro-ph. Current suggestions range from 3 to 7 sub-categories. There isn't a plan to create any addition archive names (e.g. cosmo-ph), it is more likely that there will be consolidation at some time to sort out the mix of archive (astro-ph, hep-th etc) and subject class (cond-mat. stat-mech, cond-mat.str-el etc) subdivisions. Any comments or suggestions should be sent to www-admin@arXiv.org.

In the long run I think that different archives and subject classes can only be a partial solution. Subjects such as cosmology cross the boundaries of discipline taxonomies such as that used by arXiv. It will always be necessary to have tools that pick articles related to a particular topic from multiple classifications -- just as the cosmocoffee search does.

[Phil Marshall]

Sounds like a good idea, try it now. Probably a matter of taste how obvious you like the highlighting to be.

Good stuff - I just made it through a week of astro-ph in under 10 minutes (and covered the other archives for the first time ever). Cheers!