I read the essay with interest, as I have heard or read many such complaints since before the days when regular moderation started. Some scientists would get blacklisted by the arxiv admin and would make long posts on Usenet groups. Later, many others would grumble at meetings or post on social media that their articles are not getting the arxiv classification they wanted (usually hep-th). I have had couple of such experiences myself.

But I was very disappointed by this essay. There was no mention of actual examples -- has there been a case of an article that was forced to the "physics" category by the moderators but later several articles with the exact same idea and results were posted in hep-th or gr-qc or hep-ph? There must be cases where the science was solid enough that such an article got published in a frontline research journal and read by many people. Surely there were some cases where some others picked up the idea and made it popular? Otherwise it is difficult to blame arxiv alone -- there are many novel and brilliant ideas which have been published in reputed journals and languished in obscurity because of the apathy of other scientists.

Secondly, I did not see any concrete suggestion in the essay for improving the situation. The ending is a highly pessimistic "Cassandra's predictions", which provide no clue about how to change anything in the functioning of the arxiv. The only (partial) suggestion is to allow in the arxiv only papers published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, but that would ruin the main functions of the arxiv, which are to circulate preprints before publication and to help establish priority. I could not find an answer to the competition question "How can science be different?"

    I'd support the last summarizing claim of the essay:
    "As far as I can testify, there is currently no fertile ground in modern science to welcome possible new conceptual paradigms should this happen. There may already have been groundbreaking new ideas and they may have already fallen in to oblivion in some forgotten corner of the internet. Science may have already missed important opportunities for progress, and modern science cannot afford to lose even one of these opportunities."

    It shows, together with the essay abstract, that arXiv problems (which I know from my own experience) are only particular manifestations of the underlying, much deeper science problems. After all, the main purpose of the arXiv project was open access to peer-reviewed papers, rather than open publication of any papers. The latter was rather our best hope, seemingly realized at the beginning but then fading away in arXiv practices.

    In any case, there is an evident compromise solution for the arXiv situation, where the currently rejected or downgraded papers are still published in the originally (correctly) selected sections but with an editor's "stamp" or "warning" on them of something like "Author's Responsibility Only" or "Not Confirmed by Peer Review" (alternatively, there can be a special subsection of each topical section for them). And there is an easily accessible option for users to see, search or receive news alerts about all papers or only "officially reviewed" papers (without "warning") or only "bad guys" with the "warning", while otherwise all papers are easily and equally accessible. With this kind of solution, the system-science administration and official science lovers can be satisfied with this clear distinction and the possibility to neglect the "doubtful" content, while scientific freedom lovers will profit from equal accessibility of all papers (and the "unfair" stamps won't be practically important or can be even advantageous for respective attitudes).

    And if this obvious solution is not applied to the arXiv operation, it means only that other open-access repositories, which do not want to use the open publication principle, can profit from this possibility. Although finally, open publication will win (and is already gradually winning), simply because every real possibility will find its way in a technically dense world. And also because even the most open publication and discussion won't change those deeper science problems, they can only provide more hope for the new progress in science...

    SleepingDolphin

    I, like all scientists, could not do my research without arXiv or other repositories, but this does not mean that the principles of the scientific method should be neglected.

    This is why I wanted to recall the novel "the name of the rose" in the title. Certainly arXiv, like the scribe monks in the middle age, have the aim of preserving knowledge and they do it in an excellent way for the vast majority of cases. But like the scribe monks who certainly didn't have the scientific method and didn't feel they had to justify anything to anyone, they certainly didn't encourage the circulation of ideas not in line with their "dogmas". In the novel's ending, the main protagonist (William of Baskerville) notes that due to too much zealousness towards the mission to preserve knowledge, the librarian monk (Jorge of Burgos) ended up poisoning anyone who read the forbidden book (the second book of Aristotle's Poetics) and eventually burning it. At that time, this type of censorship implied that the philosophical (pseudo-scientific) debate consisted of continuous citing and speculating on the few superinflated ideas allowed. To my humble impression the situation resembles the current one in theoretical physics.

    Surely the amanuensis monks have handed down a lot but not everything. We owe them a lot, as well as to arXiv, but they have applied censorship. I dare not criticize them because they did not know the scientific method, but allow me to criticize arXiv and any other institution that in the third millennium forgets to apply the scientific method without giving explanations on the scientific merits, without offering the possibility the defend ideas on the basis of objective evidence, or is there someone infallible which is supposed to be the holder of the absolute truth?

    Regarding your sidenote, it was not my intention to establish a hierarchy in the scientific disciplines. Theoretical physics is important but any bottleneck in the debate of any other scientific discipline would slow down all of the whole science eventually.

      Amitabha Lahiri

      I have not provided examples as the essay must be anonymous and the examples could reveal my identity in some way. I can guarantee that I am aware of many cases and after this competition I will publish some stories providing full documentation such as the exchange of emails between the arXiv moderators and the authors, even if this could cause me quite a little trouble. The article of the first episode of censorship which I would like to report with an abundance of documentation is almost in its final version.

      Amitabha Lahiri "has there been a case of an article that was forced to the "physics" category by the moderators but later several articles with the exact same idea and results were posted in hep-th or gr-qc or hep-ph? "

      Definitively yes, I know of a case where about 20 published articles, all on the very same idea and from the same author, were systematically censored by arXiv. Many of these articles are peer-reviewed articles in well-regarded scientific journals, the others are conference papers. Making the facts even worse, most of these papers were already published in highly-ranched journals (Q1) at submission.

      In this particular case, not only have individual articles been censored, but an idea has been completely censored, an idea which evidently has some scientific interest if the author managed to publish twenty articles about it. As a consequence, this idea is currently unknown to the physics community despite the fact that important results are claimed and these results are all certified by peer-review. Are the many editors and reviewers who have positively evaluated an idea for about 20 publications all certified incompetents, while they at arXiv are the only smart physicists? Is there a minimum number of publications after which an idea can be considered acceptable by arXiv? A single publication in a good journal should already be sufficient because the publication is a certification of scientific credibility until proven otherwise. Yet a few dozen publications are not enough for arXiv.

      The solution to the problem that I hope emerges quite clearly from my essay could be that arXiv respects the work of reviewers of scientific journals as certainly more accurate than the work done by moderators, both in terms of time spent analyzing the papers and in terms of policies. The reviewers present a report to which the author can at least reply on the scientific merits.
      In particular, the solution I propose is this. ArXiv, which candidly admits that it cannot enter into the scientific merit of the articles (see essay), must admit its limits and respect the greater scientific authority of academic journals. ArXiv should establish a list of journals, for example the highly ranked ones (Q1), and if an article already published in these journals is submitted, arXiv must respect the cataloging given by the journal to the article. On the other hand, to avoid reclassifications and arXiv rejections, the author should try to get the paper published in one of these journals before submitting it to arXiv.

      Amitabha Lahiri Surely there were some cases where some others picked up the idea and made it popular?
      I read an example of this somewhere in this forum. As soon as I find it I'll tag it for you.

              Donatello Dolce
              That’s all very well, what you say. You want people to fund you, people to publish your works etc. But you and the other arXiv complainers don’t actually believe that people have a choice in the matter.

              You and the other arXiv complainers, and indeed all scientists, have beliefs about the way the world is structured. The majority of your written works tell a story of a world where people, and indeed the whole world, are merely the outcomes of automatic processes. This is an “unspeakable hypothes[is] and established [truth] that cannot be questioned”.

              You and the other arXiv complainers, and indeed most scientists, in effect tell people that they are nothing but the victims of automatic processes, and then you want these same people to give you money. I don’t agree that you should be funded or published. And I think that most people, if they were actually aware of what you are saying about them, wouldn’t agree to fund or publish you either.

                  I have been publishing successfully in major arXiv categories for three decades. Then came a stage in my career when my work started impacting (in a competitive way) on mainstream ideas that appear in [hep-th] category. I am red-flagged since then, and every one of my submissions gets put on hold'' in a matter of minutes. After being on hold for about two weeks it is either rejected or sent to physics.gen-ph. No matter that the papers subsequently get published in standard refereed journals, they stay in gen-ph. This is the equivalent of sending new non-crackpot ideas to the dustbin, hiding them from view of the [hep-th] community, and blocking progress in fundamental high energy physics, a field that is stuck big time at present, and badly in need of new ideas. I also don't see the point ofget it published before submitting to arXiv''. The arXiv is a preprint repository; not a reprint repository, and meant for early dissemination of new research.

                    Administrator note:

                    This post and replying posts have been removed. This thread is for discussion of the essay submitted by MauvePanther. It is not the appropriate venue for discussion of alternate theories of physics, and it is unfair to the author to continue a protracted argument about their merits here. Likewise personal insults will not be tolerated.

                    I have therefore removed this post, edited another to which it refers, and will remove all posts which continue an off-topic argument here.

                      Christian Corda I have posted 2 times, sorry for this thread, now let s respect also the forum of mauve panther about the essay, let focus on the topic of this relevant essay, thanks for your understanding, we are not here to rebegin this fight because you are angry against me and that I explained my points of vue on linkedin, that has no sense to discuss about this here, so let s respect this forum,

                        The specific topic raised in this essay is relevant. I can give an example from my experience: I submitted a review paper to gr-qc and I received the puzzling reply that my paper should first pass in a peer reviewed journal before being accepted by the arxiv (!). Apparently a moderator so recommended. No reason was given for my paper's veto. It felt like I was submitting to a regular journal. It was sad to realize that the institution that I trusted for decades for free dissemination of scientific works adopted "moderators" that could veto papers.

                        PS: I invite you all to kindly read and rate my essay: "More diversity and creativity for a different science". I'd like to send this invitation in a separate thread but I was unable to start a new discussion in the forum so far.
                        https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entry/2330#control_panel

                          NADJA MAGALHAES I have seen the same. Many tells they publish first in a journal and first after they put it on ArXiv. There is a long history of problems with ArXiv. But if they themselves tell this it is not good.
                          Regards Ulla Mattfolk

                              Ulla Mattfolk I am kind of relieved to know that I am not the only one experiencing such a contradictory situation with the arxiv, Ulla Mattfolk. It is regrettable that a repository acts unexplainably as if it was a journal in some cases.

                                https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.05392 n scholarly publishing, blacklists aim to register fraudulent or deceptive journals and publishers, also known as "predatory", to minimise the spread of unreliable research and the growing of fake publishing outlets. However, blacklisting remains a very controversial activity for several reasons: there is no consensus regarding the criteria used to determine fraudulent journals, the criteria used may not always be transparent or relevant, and blacklists are rarely updated regularly. Cabell's paywalled blacklist service attempts to overcome some of these issues in reviewing fraudulent journals on the basis of transparent criteria and in providing allegedly up-to-date information at the journal entry level. We tested Cabell's blacklist to analyse whether or not it could be adopted as a reliable tool by stakeholders in scholarly communication, including our own academic library.

                                sure dear administrator, It is better like this, sorry to have been off topic , my apologies, regards

                                Lorraine Ford

                                I'm not sure I got your point right. Certainly, if you want to be funded, don't criticize arXiv and keep well away from the censorship danger zone by proposing ideas that might annoy some academic interests. On the contrary, to obtain funding easily, you have to try to ride the highest wave of the latest mainstream topic, trying to accommodate the ideas of those who could grant you the funds.
                                In fact, you are writing on the FQxI website which would have no reason to exist if innovative ideas brought secure funds :"FQxI catalyzes research and outreach primarily on questions at the foundations of physics and cosmology. FQxI supports high-risk, high-reward science—in particular new frontiers and innovative ideas integral to a deep understanding of physical reality that lie beyond the remit of conventional institutional support and funding. FQxI strives to make science more effective and equitable in all its efforts."

                                I am raising a problem which, as far as I have been able to ascertain, is blocking the free development of the scientific debate, of policies that are in open contrast with the basic aspect of the scientific method according to which "“the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual” [Galileo (1610)]." This means that the validity of a scientific idea is not unequivocally established by an authority without providing motivations or simply ignored altogether, but it is established with a debate in which the author must be put in the conditions to defend the thesis with reasoning and facts.

                                Science is above all an exercise of freedom. I think it is clear that there can be no scientific progress if there is no freedom of thought. It is no coincidence that the great scientific revolutions took place in the countries with the most advanced civil rights of that historical period (or which had previously had advanced civil rights). This is because science evolves by revolutions and revolutions can only happen in societies flexible enough to assimilate them. The word revolution itself, understood as the subversion of established ideas in general, comes from science where it originally indicated the movement of the planets (Maybe there would not have been the French Revolution, with the principle of equality among all people, if it hadn't been for the discovery that the earth has a "revolution" motion as all the other planets and it is not placed at the center of the universe just like the King is not placed at the center of the universe by divine right).

                                In conclusion, scientific progress can only blossom in soil fertilized by freedom of thought and debate.

                                    Tejinder Singh
                                    I have a similar problem, with the difference that some papers of mine have been rejected by arXiv even after their publication in mainstream high impact factor journals. Not even sent to gen/ph, but completely rejected.

                                      Donatello Dolce
                                      I’ll put it another way:

                                      Isn’t it true that the overwhelming majority of arXiv papers sing from the same songbook? The papers pretty much all tell a story of a type of world where people, and everything about the world, are merely the outcomes of automatic processes: laws and/or randomness.

                                      The arXiv papers tell a story of a type of world where the pilots who flew the planes into the twin towers in New York were just as much victims of the automatic processes as were the thousands of people killed or injured when the twin towers collapsed. All people, and indeed the whole world with its natural environment and weather, are just outcomes of automatic processes.

                                      The arXiv papers tell a story of a type of world where no one, including the pilots, could ever be responsible for their own physical outcomes, no one could ever be responsible for flying planes into towers, because every aspect of the world is entirely equally just an outcome of underlying automatic processes.

                                      That is why it is so surprising that arXiv paper writers would complain if the underlying automatic processes, that they so fervently believe in, led to their papers being rejected. Considering the songbook that the majority of the arXiv writers are singing from, shouldn’t they be raging against the laws of nature and randomness?