ArXiv Reaches a Milestone and a Reckoning

Runaway success and underfunding have led to growing pains for the preprint server. From a report: What started in 1989 as an e-mail list for a few dozen string theorists has now grown to a collection of more than two million papers -- and the central hub for physicists, astronomers, computer scientists, mathematicians and other researchers. On January 3 the preprint server arXiv.org crossed the milestone with a numerical analysis paper entitled "Affine Iterations and Wrapping Effect: Various Approaches." (The Library of Alexandria, for comparison, is believed to have contained no more than hundreds of thousands of manuscripts.) "We're a way for authors to communicate their research results quickly and freely," says Steinn Sigurdsson, a professor of astrophysics at Pennsylvania State University and arXiv's scientific director. Unlike traditional scientific journals, arXiv (pronounced "archive" because the "X" represents the Greek letter chi) allows scientists to share research before it has been peer-reviewed.

When submitting to traditional journals, authors frequently wait half a year or more to publish; papers typically appear on arXiv within a day. Authors often submit manuscripts to arXiv and then subsequently publish them in a peer-reviewed journal, but increasingly, papers are released on arXiv alone. Beyond traditional manuscripts, arXiv also contains white papers, historical overviews and even cheeky April Fools' Day papers. "It's like the backbone for our field," says Alex Kohls, head of the Scientific Information Service at CERN, the world's premier organization for particle physics research, located near Geneva.

"It's not only a tool for physicists and computer scientists -- it has had an impact on the overall scholarly communication process." For instance, arXiv-inspired preprint servers in the life sciences, such as bioRxiv and medRxiv, have proved invaluable for speeding up biomedical research during the coronavirus pandemic. Growth has been explosive. In 2008, 17 years after it went online, arXiv hit 500,000 papers. By late 2014 that total had doubled to one million. Seven years later arXiv has doubled its library again but continues to grapple with its role: Is it closer to a selective academic journal or more like an online warehouse that indiscriminately collects papers? Amid this confusion, some researchers are concerned about arXiv's moderation policies, which they say lack transparency and have led to papers being unfairly rejected or misclassified. At the same time, arXiv is struggling to improve the diversity of its moderators, who are predominantly men based at U.S. institutions.

Politics

[bill_mcgonigle]

Unfortunately Arxiv has been captured. Certain physicists are on blacklisted for unpopular theories (e.g. McCullough).

He may well be wrong, but a tenured physicist with darpa funding ought to at least be able to put his papers out for discussion. Many theories that have borne out started as flawed ones.

The main problem is that if he ever gets a provable theory the tremendous 'dark-matter' funding becomes unneeded and that's worth literally billions to protect.

This nonsense goes away with a decentralized publishing system. Massive peer review is much greater than centralized misincentivized peer review.

https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]

Re: Politics

[klipclop]

It's also an endless supply of eye popping click bait topics that journalists can take out of context too.

MOND is certainly ok there

[jd]

I've seen plenty on MOND. If QI breaks the rules for papers on arXiv (and the rules are reasonably clear) then I can see why QI might be rejected. If it doesn't break the rules, then you may have a case for arguing institutional prejudice. However, the Cold Fusion debacle and the heat Nature got for Hyperdilution articles has likely got a lot of places anxious to be careful.

Still, arXiv isn't that paranoid. They covered John H Conway's Strong Free Will Theorem and the rebuttals. They've even covered Emergent Gravity. Clearly controversial and unverified claims are just fine. Provided that it meets policy and perhaps some additional criteria which would strengthen credibility. So I must conclude that in this case, the claim must (a) be far more controversial than the Strong Free Will Theorem OR (b) be someone who is operating outside of their expertise (in the way Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons were), OR (c) there is something seriously problematic with the author as far as arXiv is concerned.

At face value, I can't see anything that would allow the Strong Free Will Theorem and Emergent Gravity through but not Quantum Inertia, so it has to be something deeper than face value. I'm sure there are physics geeks who can tell me precisely why the first two are more acceptable. and the third is not, and I'm sure that on seeing the explanation it'll be obvious. I'm fine with that.

You've also got to consider that there's only finite space in the book - err, arXiv - and not much is known about QI at this time. Let's see, 5 years of research, there aught to be something from the lab - at the very least a comprehensive falsifiable theory, since they're trying to build an engine. Can anyone tell me if there's anything new?

Re:Politics

[serviscope_minor]

Unfortunately Arxiv has been captured.

Originally arxiv didn't need moderation because everyone using it was sensible enough. Then it got big.

The trouble is when you try to find out about problems you rapidly wind up on screeds like this:

https://www.wanpengtan.com/202... [wanpengtan.com]

where the author is accusing arXiv of "bullying" because they insist on LaTeX, something they've done forever, and why you can download old papers in PDF when only PS used to be supported, for example. Also they're bullies apparently because they have an old latex install.

Yes I have submitted to arxiv. Yes the latex install is old and missing some packages (which you can provide, ffs). It's very mildly irritating to deal with.

The arxiv hasn't been "captured", it was never intended to deal with the daily onslaught of papers both real and fake that it's being subjected to.

Re:

[Gravis Zero]

blacklisted for unpopular theories (e.g. McCullough).

There are a LOT of people with the last name McCullough, so you are going to have to be specific.

Re:

[jythie]

In this case it is a sensationalist crackpot who has a large fan following because he is just academic enough to be 'hey look, an educated person with authority agrees with us!' but anti-science enough to resonate with conspiracy theorists. He has an 'alternative' physics that ends up getting associated with pretty much anything that needs magic to work.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

blacklisted for unpopular theories (e.g. McCullough).

There are a LOT of people with the last name McCullough, so you are going to have to be specific.

I also had to search, GP misspelling the name did not help. I guess this is about Mike McCulloch [plymouth.ac.uk] and his Quantised Inertia [arxiv.org] theory.

a tenured physicist

He's a lecturer, not tenured.

(Anonymous because modding)

Re:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The problem isn't really centralized publishing systems; it's the running battle between concerns over handing moderators power they might abuse and keeping the signal to noise ratio high enough that people don't just abandon things in disgust.

Shoving a paper onto the internet is a cheap and commodified capability and search engines don't generally depend on manual indexing these days; so any constraints of centralization are more user-demand problems than they are technical problems.

Re:

[timeOday]

ArXiv does have the advantage that its links are relatively stable. Putting a link to a random website into a paper just feels silly since it will probably break within a couple years.