In article <
publications-...@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>,
r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>
hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de (Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)) wri=
tes:
> >In article <
archive-202...@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>,
> >>My problem with arXiv is ...
> >that a paper published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
> >Society, one of the handful of top journals in the field of cosmology,
> >is not allowed into the obviously appropriate astro-ph category at
> >arXiv.
>
> Already on 2017-03-03, Hontas Farmer complained about
> something similar on a Web page titled "Censorship at the
> arXiv: endorsements, and even publication won't matter.".
I'm not familiar with his case. (Certainly not everyone who complains
about refusal by arXiv has a valid claim. arXiv definitely needs
moderation; if there were none, then it would look like viXra. And even
crackpots can get endorsed (by someone) and published (somewhere).)
Having said that, most cases I have looked into seem to be legitimate
complaints. I'm grateful to John Baez for hosting my guest post, but
unfortunately there is little discussion there. He said that he would
tweet about it, and I joined Twitter so that I could follow the
discussion. Initially, there was some vibrant discussion. Sigurdsson
(the scientific director of arXiv) was desperately trying to defend
arXiv, now claiming publicly that SCOAP3 somehow prevents arXiv from
allowing all MNRAS papers into astro-ph (and presumably similarly for
other journals and other fields) and that arXiv would get sued if it
did. But when people (not just I) asked who will sue arXiv, or on what
grounds, there was no response. (Many also doubt that SCOAP3 applies in
my case at all.) I decided to give Ginsparg another chance to fix
things before too much damage to his legacy is done. I seem to have got
his attention, and since then Sigurdsson has been silent; I don't know
whether there is any connection.
Ginsparg knows what is going on. When I first contacted him
several months ago (after I had the impression that nothing more would
happen unless I go public), he said that he is no longer involved in the
day-to-day running of arXiv. This time, when I stated that Sigurdsson
is now publicly trotting out the SCOAP3 explanation, he responded very
quickly and asked for concrete details.
The main problem is not my paper, especially since Sigurdsson is
claiming publicly that it wasn't the (lack of) quality which got it
reclassified, but rather some sort of legal pressure. Sure, it's not
the best paper on arXiv, but there are worse, and no-one who has read it
thinks that it shouldn't be on arXiv in astro-ph (whatever else they
think of it). The problem is that practically everyone assumes that all
papers from the major journals are on arXiv if the author wants them
there (and perhaps if there are no restrictions on the part of the
journal). It's not a huge disadvantage for me, but if something similar
happened to someone's first paper, the consequences could be
catastrophic.
There is little actual discussion at Twitter. If there is disagreement,
usually one side just criticizes the other with vastly exaggerated
claims (e.g. if you support J. K. Rowling then you are a Nazi; if you
are concerned about climate change you want the government to take away
all individual freedom) or just block them and so don't read any
opinions which disagree with them. There is something to be said for
discussion within a learned society or whatever, where someone has the
floor, there are rules of order, and people cannot only make their case
but those who want to engage at all have to hear it and might even be
convinced. But it seems that learned societies are no longer calling
the shots on research, but rather strange behind-the-scenes coalitions.