Submission to arXiv

guest post by Phillip Helbig

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society is one of the oldest and most prestigious journals in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology. My latest MNRAS paper was not allowed to appear in the astro-ph category at the arXiv (https://arxiv.org, the main avenue of distribution for scientific articles in many fields) because it was reclassified to a category which is inappropriate for several reasons. This is definitely not due to some technical error, misunderstanding, or oversight. It took more than three months for me to even be told why it had been reclassified, and that only after a well known cosmologist threatened the Scientific Director of arXiv that he would complain to the arXiv sponsors if things weren’t cleared up. Also, there is evidence that the reason I was given is not the real one.

Although I would like my paper to appear in astro-ph, this in not about just my paper. Rather, it is about the question whether the community wants arXiv to decide which papers, and hence which people, are allowed to be part of that community, as opposed to peer review by respected journals such as MNRAS. Below, after some general background on arXiv, I mention some policies which are probably not as well known as they should be, before briefly describing my own odyssey.

Like it or not, many if not most astronomers rely on arXiv at least for learning about new papers; some rely on it exclusively, despite the facts that not everything is on arXiv, that that which is there is not always in the definitive version, and that even if the definitive version is there, then that might not be clear. The last two (and, in some cases, the first as well) can be due to lazy authors or to restrictions imposed by journals as to what version, such as the ‘author’s accepted manuscript’, is allowed to appear; more-definitive versions hence either don’t appear or if so then that fact is not advertised. At the same time, publication in a respected journal is generally recognized as a mark of quality. In fact, the main reason that the quality of papers at arXiv is so high is that most of them will eventually appear in respected journals. So essentially journals are for separating the wheat from the chaff while arXiv has become the main method of distribution, because no subscription is required and because a majority of articles can be found at one website with a reasonably useful interface (the former is crucial for those without access to a subscription to every journal they might want to access and the latter saves large amounts of time). There is thus a problem if standards of acceptance between journals and arXiv differ.

The main reason, at least for me, to have my papers on arXiv is visibility. All else being equal, papers on arXiv are almost certainly read more, and probably cited more, than those which are not. (In a field in which a large fraction are on arXiv, the reason can’t be that only the better papers are put on arXiv. Also, at least a few years after the paper has appeared, having it on arXiv before it has appeared in the journal probably won’t substantially increase the number of times it is read and/or cited due to the only slightly increased time during which it has been available; the increased citation rate is due to the higher visibility from being on arXiv.) The ‘stamp of approval’ comes from the journal. It is easy to distribute open-access versions of the paper, although implementing a robust long-term storage strategy is not. Finding them is more difficult; that would be easiest via arXiv, but author-supplied links at the corresponding ADS& abstract web page are good enough.

People often look for open-access versions of papers via links on such web pages, especially if they want to make sure that they find the official version, not whatever version might be on arXiv; arXiv itself is not an option for papers which are not on arXiv; of course, ADS can be and is used completely independently of arXiv. Lack of visibility at arXiv is a serious disadvantage to an author and such decisions should be made only in extreme cases. (Also, having the paper at arXiv but in the wrong category can be worse than not having it there at all.)

arXiv is under no obligation to allow even a paper which has been accepted by a leading journal in the field to appear in the appropriate category (e.g., astro-ph for astronomy / astrophysics / cosmology), or even to appear at all. There are also some other things which are documented but not as well known as they should be, some things which are at best poorly documented, and inconsistent and/or incomplete recommendations. I think that it is important to alert the community to those in order to counter the impression held by many that everything worth reading is on arXiv and/or if something is not on arXiv then it must be a matter of the author excluding himself from the community, rather than being excluded by arXiv (references intentionally not included to avoid public shaming). (Of course, most who claim that all papers in their field worth reading are on arXiv are not in a position to make that claim, because they don’t read any papers which are not on arXiv.) I suspect that at least some of those things are known by many, but also that there is a fear of criticizing arXiv in public for fear of getting banned, which is the modern-day equivalent of excommunication.

According to the submission agreement, “[t]he Submitter waives…[a]ny claims against arXiv…based upon actions…including…decisions to include the Work in, or exclude the Work from, the repository…the classification or characterization of the Work.” “arXiv reserves the right to reject or reclassify any submission.” In other words, the idea that any serious paper (‘serious’ being defined here as having appeared in a respected journal) can (assuming, of course, that the journal allows it) be uploaded to arXiv is wrong. Also, arXiv reserves the right to reclassify the article, e.g. a paper submitted to astro-ph can be reclassified to gen-ph. Moreover, after such a reclassification, the author is not allowed to withdraw the paper (Steinn Sigurdsson*, personal communication; Eleonora Presani@, personal communication), although that is technically possible (by first ‘unsubmitting’ it then ‘deleting’ it).

Of course, journals also decide which papers they accept and reject. However, the comparison of arXiv with journals is not appropriate, for several reasons: arXiv does not peer-review submissions and claims to do only a minimal amount of moderation. Also, journals offer something between acceptance and rejection, namely the possibility of revision, coupled with the opportunity to discuss the degree of revision, or even reasons for rejection, with the referee(s) and/or editor(s). Of course, revision of an article accepted by a journal doesn’t make sense, but the fact that it is not offered is another piece of evidence that interaction with arXiv shouldn’t be compared to interaction with a journal. Moreover, if an article is rejected by a journal, it is not automatically submitted to another journal, much less without any possibility for the author to choose to withdraw it completely, hence the claim that the various arXiv categories are comparable to various journals with different standards (Eleonora Presani, personal communication) is dubious at best. In addition, there is usually more than one journal of comparable reputation in a given field, so the author has the chance of getting an independent evaluation. In that case, competition between journals is good. In the case of arXiv, however, a monopoly is actually good, as long as it works, because one of the main advantages of arXiv is that there is only one place one needs to look in order to find most papers. This is the main point of my criticism: arXiv’s unique relevance to the community means that excluding a paper from its intended category should be done only under extreme circumstances. arXiv has become one of the most important resources for the astronomical community but that community has essentially no control over arXiv. Great power should be accompanied by great responsibility. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It is possible to appeal a decision. However, the appeals process is not well documented, in part because astro-ph is sometimes seen as a top-level category, sometimes as one of the physics categories. As part of the appeals process, “[e]xtreme cases may be addressed to the appropriate advisory committee chair only”. The value of a successful appeal is questionable, because most rely on the abstract lists for recent papers in a particularly category, either sent via email or available at the arXiv website. As far as I know, a paper reclassified after a successful appeal would not appear in the ‘recent’ list for that category. The main problem with such an appeal, though, is that arXiv is policing itself.

For various reasons, in recent years so-called arXiv-overlay journals have sprung up. There is even one for astrophysics, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, and I have published a review paper there. The basic idea is that there is a robust distribution structure already in place, namely arXiv, so the job of the journal is essentially only to provide refereeing. Such journals usually assume that all potential authors could post their paper to arXiv before submitting it to the journal, but obviously that is not the case. (Some even use the arXiv category as a filter to determine whether the paper could even be considered to be appropriate for the journal.) It is sometimes possible, though usually not widely advertised, to submit to the journal first and submit the paper to arXiv only after acceptance, which is what I did (like many, I prefer to put papers on arXiv only after acceptance). That paper had no problems at arXiv, but based on the reasons I’m presenting here, arXiv-overlay journals are no longer an option for me. (I have long suggested not only that should the possibility to submit to the journal before submitting to arXiv be more widely advertised, but also that the journal should have some sort of agreement with arXiv that any paper accepted by the journal automatically qualifies for the corresponding category at arXiv (after all, the purpose of a journal is publication); alas, the Open Journal of Astrophysics does not plan to pursue that at all: “OJA has no power to compel arXiv to accept submissions, nor would we want to. We see arXiv as the most important resource in astrophysics….”.) Despite the longevity and robustness of some traditional journals, the scientific publishing landscape is changing rapidly. That is a topic for another discussion, but part of it involves arXiv-overlay journals, and wrong assumptions about arXiv mean that a substantial part of the new system is built on shaky foundations.

Those who are interested in high-quality, free-for-readers-and-authors, well organized, open-access journals should check out https://scipost.org/. Is there any valid reason to submit anywhere else? Their astronomy journals are just getting underway; please consider supporting them.

I learned about some of the things discussed above the hard way when my latest MNRAS paper was reclassified from astro-ph to gen-ph (general physics). Of course, I appealed the decision quickly, after discussing the matter with a few colleagues, some of whom assumed that it must have been some sort of technical glitch. It took more than three months before I was told a reason for the classification (after having escalated up to the highest levels of arXiv)§, and more than four before the appeals process finally ended. That paper is not on arXiv, and I don’t intend to post anything else to arXiv before the procedure becomes fairer, more transparent, and more accountable (if it ever does). I had escalated as highly as possible within arXiv before I asked Cornell University (which hosts arXiv) to investigate possible academic misconduct, which led to an email from Eleonora Presani. Her stance is essentially the same as that of Licia Verde#: my accusations themselves don’t seem to have been investigated and authors just have to live with the fact that arXiv can reclassify papers at will and even prevent authors from withdrawing them completely before announcement if they disagree with the reclassification. Unfortunately, Cornell takes the point of view that although Cornell maintains and sustains arXiv, it is not the university’s role to interfere in the moderation or appeal process.

There is evidence that I wasn’t told the real reason why my paper was reclassified$, and no-one with whom I have discussed the matter thinks that arXiv was right to reclassify my paper. (That doesn’t mean that they necessarily have a high opinion of my paper, but those are two separate issues. One colleague stated (though not in reference to my paper) that even the occasional papers which appear in respected journals obviously by mistake should appear on arXiv; that would put pressure on journals to be more careful and also benefit those wishing to critically discuss or refute them.) However, I will discuss that and other aspects (hopefully) unique to my case elsewhere (perhaps in the comments if there is interest), and here concentrate on problems which the astronomical community should recognize and try to correct.

I certainly regard reclassifying a paper which has appeared in MNRAS to a category other than astro-ph, giving reasons for the reclassification only after threat from a famous colleague, and then giving me a completely different reason, to be an extreme case. Thus, I did contact the chair of the physics advisory committee, Robert Seiringer; that he is the appropriate person was also confirmed by Licia Verde. Nevertheless, his response was that he could not investigate disputes involving individual submissions, which was also Verde’s reply to my complaint. Hence, not only is there disagreement between arXiv’s documented appeals procedure and how those involved actually behave, there seems to be no system of checks and balances within arXiv, not to mention the problem that the community, despite relying on arXiv, in practice has no way to arbitrate disputes with it; it is judge, jury, and executioner.

All who believe that my paper should be on arXiv in the astro-ph.CO category if I so desire are encouraged to contact the Scientific Director, the Executive Director, the Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board, and the Chair of the Physics Advisory Committee and complain. It is not necessary to think that my paper is great. It is enough if one thinks that it is not so bad that it should be banned from astro-ph, or even if one can point to worse papers which are in astro-ph. (Of course, if one agrees that my paper should appear in astro-ph.CO, the reason why arXiv has not (yet?) let it appear are irrelevant.)

Of course, my bad experience with arXiv is not the main point. The main point is that arXiv can, and does, make decisions which experts in the field (see third footnote; Tegmark wasn’t the only expert consulted by me) cannot understand at all. Due to fear of the consequences of criticizing arXiv, most of those probably go unnoticed. While arXiv does need the possibility to reject or reclassify some papers, that needs to be done transparently and fairly. However, in view of its value to the community, there should be some simple rules, such as a ‘white list’ of journals so that papers accepted by them automatically qualify for the corresponding category at arXiv. Fortunately, my own livelihood does not depend on submitting to arXiv (in either sense of the word). Imagine the consequences of a young scientist who, after a year or so of work, gets their first paper accepted by a serious journal, only to have it rejected by arXiv or reclassified into a category where no colleague, potential employer, and so on will see it. Not only that, but the decision is made by someone (or some thing; arXiv is now moving to classification based on machine learning, but that was not relevant to the reclassification of my paper (Licia Verde, personal communication)) via an untransparent algorithm and no reason is given. Any appeal is within arXiv itself and essentially consists of some people asking others if they are guilty and accepting the expected answer. Such behaviour should be an embarrassment to the scientific community.

I think that some action on the part of the community would be in order even if my paper were the only one affected. However, the problem is much larger. Many colleagues have told me that they disagree with the reclassification of my paper, but are afraid to say so publicly for fear of getting banned from arXiv themselves. Also, I have been told that I am far from the first person to make such complaints about arXiv. Since I have started discussing this with colleagues, a few other similar cases have been mentioned to me. Considering that many of those affected probably don’t mention it at all out of a false sense of shame, the number of people affected is probably larger than many might at first guess. (I am not on FaceBook, but I understand that a similar problem was recently discussed within a FaceBook group for professional astronomers.)

A new development is that arXiv, by its own admission, doesn’t have the necessary means to do its job properly, and that I am not the only one complaining about it:

• Daniel Garisto, ArXiv.org reaches a milestone and a reckoning, Scientific American, 10 January 2022.

A red herring is that the American Astronomical Society has made all of its journals (which are some of the major journals in cosmology/astrophysics/astronomy) open-access. That probably won’t diminish the importance of arXiv—and hence the importance of making sure that it is run responsibly—for several reasons. First, an attraction of arXiv is that it is a one-stop shop with a reasonable interface, and by following it one can keep of with much of the literature in one’s field (though of course not all papers are posted to arXiv, but if it is run responsibly then there should be no reason for them not to be, except if the journal forbids posting (some version of) the paper to arXiv). Even if all papers were open-access, that would mean following websites, or RSS feeds, of several or even dozens of websites, not nearly as convenient as the abstract listings at arXiv. Second, the AAS journals have rather expensive publication fees, which are becoming increasingly hard to justify, especially in the case of online-only publications. (Note that there are journals with no publication fees which actually encourage the author to post something equivalent to the final version on arXiv with no embargo period; MNRAS is an example.) Third, items which would otherwise have limited circulation, such as theses and conference proceedings, can (in principle) be on arXiv.

I’m all for giving arXiv more support, but first my paper needs to be rehabilitated by being allowed into astro-ph, and the policies should be changed, and publicly communicated, so that such problems do not happen in the future (neither to me nor anyone else); I could then post my backlog. The evidence is that the goof is so large that a public apology is called for. The minimum which needs to be done:

  1. When a paper is reclassified, authors should be informed (now, there is not even an automatic email; that makes sense because arXiv thinks that it needs to reclassify some papers against the will of the submitter) and given a chance to approve the reclassification, delete the submission entirely, suggest another reclassification, or appeal. Until the matter is resolved, the submission should stay in the ‘hold’ status with no action required to keep it there (now, one has to unsubmit and resubmit it to keep it from going away).
  2. When a paper is reclassified, the submitter must be given concrete reasons.

  3. The appeals process needs to be overseen with some authority outside of arXiv which has the power to overrule arXiv’s decisions, otherwise it is more or less a farce. It seems to me that some committee in the corresponding professional organization would be a good choice, e.g. the International Astronomical Union for papers on cosmology / astrophysics / astronomy. There can be an internal appeals process, but the final authority of arXiv’s decisions should not reside with arXiv if arXiv is to provide a meaningful service to the community.

  4. Papers from the major journals should be essentially white-listed. If a paper is really so bad that it is obvious that it somehow slipped in by mistake, arXiv should request the journal to formally withdraw it. If the journal does so, then arXiv shouldn’t accept it either. If not, then it should go onto arXiv. (It should go on even if it is bad, to put pressure on journals to uphold quality and so that it can be discussed and rebutted).

  5. arXiv needs to publicly apologize for reclassifying papers for reasons other than quality or content (e.g. my case), and invite those papers to be resubmitted after the other points above have been implemented.

  6. The points above should make (re)submissions by wrong authors viable, but perhaps some sort of special protection is needed for whistle-blowers such as myself.

  7. I was going to call for the resignation of Seiringer, Verde, and Presani, but it seems that they have all no longer in the posts they were when interacting with me. The main guilty person, though, Sigurdsson, is still Scientific Director. How anyone can be aware of my story (which can be backed up with evidence, in court if necessary) and still think that Sigurdsson should have anything at all to do with arXiv is beyond me. Also, although they have chosen (probably with good reason) to remain nameless, if arXiv were not drastically wrong on this point, the distinguished colleagues who put in a lot of time and effort trying to get arXiv to reverse its decision would not have done so. I am extremely grateful to them for their courage.

Of course, a boycott will not put pressure on arXiv. (It would actually remove pressure if people who are critical of arXiv stop using it.) If really famous people publicly announce that they will stop posting to arXiv until the points I raise have been cleared up, that might lead to something.

It is not clear how large the problem is, in part because not everyone feels able to complain. I don’t think that my case is a one-off, or even part of a small minority, because otherwise arXiv would not have invested so much time and effort to prevent one more abstract from appearing in astro-ph. I have given them several opportunities to revert their decision and hence cut their losses, but never even received a reply to such requests. Thus, the problem is probably substantial, and hence should be of interest to the entire community.

Information based on the web pages pointed to by the URLs in the reference list reflects the state of those pages on 28 August 2020; that based on the technical behaviour of the arXiv interface reflects my experiences between 20 April and 25 July 2020. References to ‘arXiv’ reflect my experience with the astro-ph category.

I would be interested in hearing anything relevant to this topic by email (my address is easy enough to find). Please indicate the degree of confidentiality you wish.

Please point as many people as possible, by all means at your disposal, to this post and related discussion. I am probably taking a big risk by going public, but if I do so, I want it to have the maximum effect. I see the lack of accountability of arXiv as a serious problem in modern academia.

Footnotes

* Steinn Sigurdsson is the Scientific Director of arXiv.

@ Eleonora Presani was the first Executive Director of arXiv, the post having been created only in 2020, while arXiv itself was created in 1991. She used to work for Elsevier. On 21 December 2021, it was announced that she would step down. According to the same announcement, Steinn Sigurdsson is still Scientific Director. Robert Seiringer is no longer Chair of the physics committee. I don’t see a new Executive Director listed on the arXiv Leadership Team web page.

§ Even that happened only after noted cosmologist Max Tegmark had threatened to complain to arXiv’s sponsors if my paper wasn’t taken out of limbo. Before, I had received only an extremely brief reply from Sigurdsson, and that only after a colleague who has known him for a long time discussed my complaints with him. Tegmark not only agrees that arXiv is overstepping its bounds by essentially overriding the refereeing process of a respected journal, but also that there is no reason that my paper should not be allowed to appear in astro-ph. He was also kind enough and brave enough to give me permission to quote from his emails to me. These do contain quotations of emails he received from arXiv. Ethically, I think that trying to correct the tremendous harm done to me and others because of wrong reclassification overrides any concerns about quoting without permission (which of course would not be given), especially since such quotations make my case much stronger than merely paraphrasing what others have told me or even just my own suspicions; this is a typical whistle-blower situation.

$ The only reason which I was given is the alleged lack of “substantiveness” of the paper. Max Tegmark, on the other hand, wasn’t told that, but was told that my case is “complicated” and that “[t]he reason for this [arXiv not automatically accepting a paper accepted by a journal] is partly the SCOAP3 agreement, which arXiv is not party to but still put certain obligations on us, and partly because we can not privilege any one journal or publisher for legal reasons. We get sued.” (Max Tegmark, personal communication.) I certainly don’t think that arXiv should automatically accept a paper just because it has been accepted by any journal, but do think that rejecting or reclassifying a paper which has been accepted by a respected journal should be done only under extreme circumstances, via a transparent and fair process, and for reasons which can be explained. Also, no one I have talked to has any idea how SCOAP3 could be relevant to my paper. Apart from Max Tegmark, several other colleagues (all full professors of cosmology / astrophysics / astronomy at major research universities) tried to intervene with arXiv (which did not want even discuss the matter with a low-life such as myself). That none of them want their names mentioned publicly is a problem in itself: the people whom arXiv is supposed to serve do not feel free to offer constructive criticism in public. Between the lines (or even in them, if one is allowed to see them), it seems that, in my case, the reclassification was not due to the contents or quality of my paper, but rather indicates another, possibly even more serious, problem: arXiv appears to be afraid of getting sued by crackpots. Apparently they abuse the gen-ph category (which is a mix of papers about general physics, papers which at first or even second or third glance obviously belong in another category and have nothing obviously wrong with them, and genuine crackpot stuff) by reclassifying some real papers to it and also letting through a few crackpot papers, thus avoiding the accusation of white-listing the major journals (which shouldn’t be a problem) and the crackpots can be appeased by having their papers in the same category as some major-journal papers. Of course this is not a policy which arXiv has published, but when several people get the same message behind the scenes, it is as certain as it needs to be to make my case. Although I believe that the concept still would have been deeply flawed, I offered to leave the paper in gen-ph but get have it cross-listed to astro-ph, but that suggestion was rejected by arXiv. Of course, if their goal is to appease the crackpots but at the same time keep them out of the major categories, that strategy wouldn’t work, because they would then have to cross-list crackpot papers or make a distinction, which is what they are trying to avoid (or rather they want to have a few alibi papers with no distinction).

# Licia Verde was Chair of the arXiv Scientific Advisory Committee. The Chair is now Ralph Wijers, who is also chair of the Physics Advisory Committee. I did contact him, but he sees no reason to investigate my case, as it happened before his posts as Chairman.

& The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data system is the most important bibliographic database in astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology, operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (part of the Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which also includes the Harvard College Observatory) under a grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

25 Responses to Submission to arXiv

  1. Wolfgang says:

    Your problem is about the classification of papers, but I think the real problem runs deeper, namely that we scientists have not found a way to organize the dissemination of scientific information we produce under total own control, without anyone else interfering with it. That would be real freedom of speech, right? Instead we are always critically dependent on others, whether for peer review, professional publishers, or some organization like arXiv, which might have started under the best intentions, but, as it happens as these organizations grow and gain more power, almost always end up utterly corrupted. Unfortunately, I do see the need for the existence of some kind of gate keepers, since otherwise we all would drown in papers of the lowest possible quality. But then, if you allow them this role, they will produce such things that happened to you, of course. I do subscribe to the point of view that there has to be more transparency and a clear process for appealing decisions which have been made. And yes, if wrong decisions were made people should apologize, but no, they don’t necessarily have to resign, that’s a little bit too much.

    • As you say at the beginning, the problem is that arXiv is not under the control of those who use it. I don‘t see it as a “freedom of speech” issue; moderation is definitely needed (look at https://viXra.org/ to get an idea what arXiv without moderation would look like). As for resigning, three of the people are no longer in post (only Sigurdsson remains). Based on what I wrote above, calling for resignation might seem too much. Based on the (in many cases lack of) email correspondence and the arrogant, condescending, and thoroughly unprofessional way this was handled, just a resignation would be letting him off easy.

      I’ve published in several journals. Apart from my very first refereed-journal paper, I have had only very good experiences with referees and editors in connection with my submissions. (In the case of the first paper, at some point we complained to another editor of the same journal, and the paper was accepted, back-dated to the date of some earlier correspondent. A short time later, the initial editor of our paper resigned, with no reason given. I don’t know if there was a connection.). For that matter, until the problem described above, I’ve had good experience with arXiv (though I do find the flippant tone in many of their emails unprofessional and annoying).

      I mentioned https://scipost.org/ above. It might be what you are looking for. I don’t remember if they started out as arXiv-overlay journals, but now they actually publish the paper like any online journal (and of course it is allowed to go on arXiv as well). They have many journals, but to some extent are still influenced by the fact that they were set up by a condensed-matter physicists. The astronomy journals are just taking off, with some good articles by well known people. Look into them. There is also a journal for lecture notes, which is an interesting way to make useful things available which are not original research and so on.

      • Wolfgang says:

        As for the necessary moderation, I fully agree. I know this other site, but I dare not repeat its name, since I don’t want to give it more publicity than it deserves. It can be fun to visit once in a while to find the one reasonable paper between the thousand others which, for instance, claim to proof the Riemann hypothesis AND Goldbach’s conjecture in less than three pages :). Just to give an idea about what to expect there.

        Regarding your experiences with referees I can only say you seem to be lucky. It’s true, most of my experiences were also good. Most people are nice and professional. But of course that’s not true in general. If some people get power, they tend to abuse it, and the scientific reviewing process is not an exemption from this general rule, in particular because it is asymmetric in terms of transparency and the anonymous referee usually also has the last word, depending on the quality and standing of the editor. Due to the fact that there is often only one exchange of opinions, it is already very hard to react to simple misunderstandings, and if there is, for some unknown reasons, some malice included on the side of the referee, one cannot really successfully appeal any referee opinion, unless the critique is very blatant or gets personal. My approach to it is to ignore it and go on, because it drains ones energy and life is too short for that. Of course, I know, that this is perpetuating the problems for others.

        • If the referee is obviously wrong, one can appeal to the editor(-in-chief) and, if that doesn’t work, withdraw the submission and submit it to another journal. Fortunately, there is usually more than one choice of otherwise comparable journals.

          However, there is no alternative to arXiv, nor could there be, because its main attraction is that it is a one-stop shop. Despite its “unofficial” status, it thus needs to be even more fair, transparent, and clear in its communication than journals do (not that journals shouldn’t strive to be as good as possible).

  2. My post above is intended to give a general overview of the problem, although of course it was inspired by my own troubles with arXiv. More details on my specific case (which might help some to understand where I’m coming from, though I think that public discussion should concentrate on the general problem and getting others affected to come forward and, hopefully, finding well known and respected people brave enough to support me in this and call out arXiv for an obvious blunder which, despite more than enough opportunity, they refuse to fix) can be found in some comments on another thread here: https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2020/08/08/diary-2003-2020/

  3. Back when I was discussing this matter with colleagues (who later contacted arXiv, but to no avail), I wrote up versions of different length of my ordeal, concentrating on my own problems (it was of course obvious to those involved that arXiv unaccountability is a big problem). I have had them, password-protected, on the web for a long time, but am now making them publicly available: http://www.astro.multivax.de/arxiv/ . Again, like the links in the comments above, they are intended as background information concerning my specific case. I think that the public discussion should concentrate on the general problem which affects many others, though of course I am happy to discuss even more details with anyone who is in a position to actually influence arXiv (or at least thinks that they can).

  4. Graham Jones says:

    I searched for “flatness problem cosmology” using Google (not Google scholar). Your paper appears on the first page. Who needs arxiv?

    • If only it were that easy. Everything I have published is publicly available in (something equivalent to) the final, official version. If one knows that it exists, then one can find it. ADS even links directly to my web server. (ADS is an example of how an organization for the benefit of the astronomical community should be run.). However, many or even most people in many fields rely on arXiv exclusively for noticing new papers (and some rely on it for everything), so not being on arXiv is a large disadvantage—otherwise I wouldn’t be complaining.

  5. Just to clarify, in case anyone thinks that distinguished cosmologist, successful writer, MIT physics professor, and all-round nice bloke Max Tegmark threatened any sort of violence or whatever (not that I would have thought that anyone could have possibly misinterpreted that part of my guest post), what I’m referring to is that I had heard nothing from Sigurdsson for weeks, then Max wrote him:

    If this remains in limbo a week from now, I plan to email the Simons Foundation and other arXiv donors to express my views on fairness, transparency and accountability.

    And then shortly thereafter I heard from Sigurdsson, who, as noted, however, gave me a different reason for the reclassification than those given to Max. (Not that any of them really make any sense.). Of course, that could be just coincidence. In any case, it is not my fault if arXiv refused to discuss things with me and I have to piece them together.

  6. In case anyone is wondering why a paper I submitted almost two years ago is now being discussed, it is because I have bent over backwards to give arXiv every opportunity to solve this problem in a sensible manner. They are not interested, unable to do so, or both.

    Even if it is really the case that their hands are tied and they cannot act otherwise, that is no reason to treat me so disrespectfully, and as it is apparently not well know, it is something which the community should know about.

  7. Stasheff, James says:

    John, Many thanks for the arXiv posting. Would he permit it being posted to alg-top as well?

    • Sure. Now that I’ve gone public, the more publicity, at least by people sympathetic to my cause, the better.

      Best to post both the link to my guest post and to the Twitter thread.

  8. Supernaut says:

    Thanks, I am sorry this occurred to you. I also saw that there have been info exchanges about this on Twitter…

    • Yes, some interesting stuff on Twitter. It would be nice to have all discussion in one place, such as here, but one can’t have everything (as Lemmy quipped, where would you put it?). In particular, the scientific director of arXiv has stated publicly that SCOAP3 prevents arXiv from accepting all papers from the major journals. Whatever the details, that is a tremendously important and frightening statement for scientific publishing in general and open-access publishing in particular, especially since some legal eagles are apparently calling the shots.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsoring_Consortium_for_Open_Access_Publishing_in_Particle_Physics

      Read about SCOAP3. My paper is not about particle physics. There was no open-access fee. (Standard for MNRAS is that author retains copyright, but with a different license, so that aspect is also irrelevant). Again: what does SCOAP3 have to do with my paper?

      The official version of my paper is free to read for everyone at the MNRAS website. While it was initially available via the normal link only to subscribers, that restriction is lifted after a while. Also, authors are actually encouraged to make an author postprint of the final version publicly available, which I did, and authors also receive an offprint link via which those who have it can access the official version even before the lifting of the restriction, which I distributed. So MNRAS is in practice an open-access journal, free to authors and readers. How long the subscription model will remain sustainable, I don’t know.

      The point is not that my paper is unavailable, because it is freely available. Fortunately, the days when we needed arXiv to distribute preprints and papers and conference proceedings and so on are over. Disks are 20 cents per GB or whatever and 50 Mbit/s or better inexpensive flat-rate internet connections are common even in homes. The problem is visibility. Like it or not, many rely on arXiv, even exclusively, for noticing new papers. I don’t care about people with such a voluntarily limited research strategy, but I do care about people being excluded from the community by arXiv, for whatever reason, and not even being informed.

      Like John Baez, I am sympathetic to the idea of arXiv-overlay journals, but obviously they work only if arXiv works. The statement that SCOAP3 prevents arXiv from accepting all papers from major journals basically makes responsible arXiv-overlay journals a non-starter. I did publish a paper in The Open Journal of Astrophysics, which is an arXiv-overlay journal. Fortunately, that paper had no problem with arXiv. However, until arXiv implements better policies, arXiv-overlay journals are a non-starter for me, and should be for everyone. (Also, I cannot understand and am angered by the refusal of the OJA to do what every real online journal does, add a line of HTML code to link to their local copy of the paper (which they have anyway from refereeing and plan to curate indefinitely). I can’t think of any other reason that to intentionally exclude authors whose papers, for whatever reason, cannot go into astro-ph on arXiv.)

    • Yes, some interesting stuff on Twitter. It would be nice to have all discussion in one place, such as here, but one can’t have everything (as Lemmy quipped, where would you put it?). In particular, the scientific director of arXiv has stated publicly that SCOAP3 prevents arXiv from accepting all papers from the major journals. Whatever the details, that is a tremendously important and frightening statement for scientific publishing in general and open-access publishing in particular, especially since some legal eagles are apparently calling the shots.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsoring_Consortium_for_Open_Access_Publishing_in_Particle_Physics

      Read about SCOAP3. My paper is not about particle physics. There was no open-access fee. (Standard for MNRAS is that author retains copyright, but with a different license, so that aspect is also irrelevant). Again: what does SCOAP3 have to do with my paper?

      The official version of my paper is free to read for everyone at the MNRAS website. While it was initially available via the normal link only to subscribers, that restriction is lifted after a while. Also, authors are actually encouraged to make an author postprint of the final version publicly available, which I did, and authors also receive an offprint link via which those who have it can access the official version even before the lifting of the restriction, which I distributed. So MNRAS is in practice an open-access journal, free to authors and readers. How long the subscription model will remain sustainable, I don’t know.

      The point is not that my paper is unavailable, because it is freely available. Fortunately, the days when we needed arXiv to distribute preprints and papers and conference proceedings and so on are over. Disks are 20 cents per GB or whatever and 50 Mbit/s or better inexpensive flat-rate internet connections are common even in homes. The problem is visibility. Like it or not, many rely on arXiv, even exclusively, for noticing new papers. I don’t care about people with such a voluntarily limited research strategy, but I do care about people being excluded from the community by arXiv, for whatever reason, and not even being informed.

      Like John Baez, I am sympathetic to the idea of arXiv-overlay journals, but obviously they work only if arXiv works. The statement that SCOAP3 prevents arXiv from accepting all papers from major journals basically makes responsible arXiv-overlay journals a non-starter. I did publish a paper in The Open Journal of Astrophysics, which is an arXiv-overlay journal. Fortunately, that paper had no problem with arXiv. However, until arXiv implements better policies, arXiv-overlay journals are a non-starter for me, and should be for everyone. (Also, I cannot understand and am angered by the refusal of the OJA to do what every real online journal does, add a line of HTML code to link to their local copy of the paper (which they have anyway from refereeing and plan to curate indefinitely). I can’t think of any other reason that to intentionally exclude authors whose papers, for whatever reason, cannot go into astro-ph on arXiv.)

  9. James Smith says:

    Hello Phillip,

    it certainly seems that you have been wronged and I am sorry for that. However, some of the things you write strike me as naive. In particular, you write:

    At the same time, publication in a respected journal is generally recognized as a mark of quality. In fact, the main reason that the quality of papers at arXiv is so high is that most of them will eventually appear in respected journals. So essentially journals are for separating the wheat from the chaff…

    I am sorry but you will not find a single seasoned academic who would agree with you on this, unless they are as naive as you or cynical, or a combination of both.

    Publication in an academic journal or conference proceedings does not guarantee quality, this is a fallacy. Look at string theory. There are tens of thousands of published papers and only fools think that they have any lasting value. This is an extreme example but other subjects only differ by degree.

    Go and ask a career scientist who has been in academia for decades and they will tell you the same thing, unless they are lying to your face.

    Best of luck.

    • Put it this way: in my field (astronomical cosmology), the quality of refereed-journal papers is on average certainly higher than that of non-refereed papers, and there are very few really bad papers. I can’t speak for other fields. Without any moderation, arXiv would be essentially useless.

    • mitchellporter says:

      James Smith writes

      “Look at string theory. There are tens of thousands of published papers and only fools think that they have any lasting value. This is an extreme example”

      Your website suggests that you are a computer scientist, so could it be that this estimation derives from your overall opinion of string theory, rather than any understanding of the value of the average paper about string theory? String theory is a big subject and there is a lot to understand.

  10. It is true that “respected journals” contain a lot of rubbish. It is also true that the arXiv contains a lot of rubbish. The difference is in whose job it is to try and filter out the rubbish, and the accountability of the process by which this is done. Respected journals have a lot of accountability, the arXiv has none.

    • Another difference is that there is competition among journals. A journal with too much rubbish become unattractive to publish in. One can’t read everything, so where something is published is a sensible prior. So a good journal won’t publish too much rubbish. But if they reject too much good stuff, it can get published elsewhere.

      arXiv is an example of something which makes sense only if it is a monopoly. Its main attraction is that it is a one-stop shop. If there are several competing similar platforms, one might as well just check a couple of dozen journal websites. But the community has to have control over it, and doesn’t. If a journal screws up, people can go elsewhere.

  11. As mentioned above, much of the conversation is on Twitter. After an initial burst of tweets trying to justify arXiv’s response, a) Sigurdsson seems to have stopped tweeting on this topic and b) no-one has come to arXiv’s defence but many have come to mine. Also no defence of arXiv here at Azimuth. I’m not sure what’s up; time will tell.

    The IAU General Assembly is coming up. Someone with clout should propose a resolution to the effect that the IAU should investigate the fact that the community depends on arXiv but has no control over it and figure out what to do about it. Other fields should do the same.

    I don’t care about people who think that everything worth reading is at arXiv. The biggest problem is that I am not the only one affected; someone just starting out suffering a similar fate would effectively have their career cancelled, possibly with disastrous effects.

  12. Marco Ripà says:

    Please, take a minute to read my very bad experience with the arXiv moderation system.
    I am an Independent Researcher and arXiv have just rejected three papers of mine in a row (submitted to number theory and combinatorics).
    Now, the first and the latter of the three were revised/improved versions of previously published papers on two different journals, and the last one improves the published results by invoking theorems from three other published papers of mine (in two different journals).

    arXiv moderators wrote me yesterday, specifying that they will consider my formal appeal request only after the paper will be accepted by a peer-review journal, but I previously, clearly, explained them, stating this also on the paper itself (which I submitted twice, receiving back a ban alert from them!), in the comment field, that the submission is a revision of an altready published paper by a peer-review journal (providing its ISSN, link, and references).

    Considering the facts, they have asked me twice, in two different emails, to infringe journals copyright and science policy, submitting to another journal an already published content (now I have specified more than once that this would be the case), in order to be allowed to submit a 5 pages long paper containing only a clear proof and basic calculations; a simple paper that they said to not be able to check due to lack of time!

    At this point, I am really sad, starting to think about these responses as discriminatory prejudices against me, an unfair set of contradictory answers, and I am feeling very bad for this… anyway, I appealed again to the last hasty, unsopported, and totally arbitrary decision by arXiv moderators.

    In any case, I am afraid to be unjustifiably ostracized by arXiv moderation system, since some unknown moderators haven’t provided any clear reason in order to support their rejections concerning the submissions to an OPEN online repository. My claim is due to a clear statement by moderators themselves: they basically replied to me that moderators are unable to perform a mere check on proved results (due to lack of time), written in a 5 pages long paper which extends other previously published results leading to the same statements as the original paper!

    Moreover, the first paper I ever submitted was published on arXiv very soon and is a very bad preprint containing only two dumb conjectures about perfect squares… a preprint that no academic journal can ever consider for publication purposes: IMHO, this is almost ridiculous!

    “Hoping for the best, but expecting the worst”, since the perceived personal discrimination feeling (due to mathematically unsopported rejections based on contradictory reasons) will last forever inside my heart, and this is a very bad thing for somebody who loves mathematics more than itself and spend its time to write (for free) repeteadly rejected preprints. ;-(

    Just my two cents.

  13. It depends. In my case, the paper had been accepted by the leading journal in the field. There are peer-reviewed journals of low quality, so I am surprised that arXiv said that a peer-reviewed journal would suffice. arXiv is not “open” nor should it be; it clearly needs some moderation. The problem is that the process is not transparent and that false reasons are given for rejection/reclassification.

    I don’t expect arXiv to be able to decide whether every paper is of sufficient quality. I do expect them to respect the leading journals in the field regarding this question, which was not done in my case, nor in some others.

    With regard to Twitter, I’ll probably leave soon, or at least diminish my presence there, because it is not really effective for most of my goals (in relation to arXiv and other things). One thing which characterizes arXiv is that people tend to speak more freely. Some see this as often for the worse, but if it is really what people think I would rather know that rather than let them hide behind a cloak of insincere politeness. In my case, Steinn Sigurdsson admitted some things on arXiv which he probably didn’t want to, such as admitting that not even all things arXiv itself views as mistakes are corrected, and providing (perhaps) the real real reason why my paper was reclassified: arXiv has to reclassify a certain number of serious papers to avoid getting sued. Steinn doesn’t say by whom nor on what grounds, but this jibes with the fact that an author isn’t allowed to delete a reclassified submission—the author is not even informed.
    (In my case, after months of negotiation and some of the biggest names in the field standing up for me, I was exceptionally allowed to delete it, but then was later told that I had violated the rules by doing son.)

    Behind the scenes, I’ve heard many similar stories, but most people are afraid to speak out for fear of getting banned by arXiv. That in itself is a problem, of course. The most chilling: someone told me that he was comfortable in speaking out, but feared that his students would be punished by arXiv.

    arXiv has become an embarrassment to the community. The community needs to stand up and do something about it.

You can use Markdown or HTML in your comments. You can also use LaTeX, like this: $latex E = m c^2 $. The word 'latex' comes right after the first dollar sign, with a space after it.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.