How far is the boundary of scientific freedom today? How much is the scientific debate biased by academic gurus and corporate interests? Are there unspeakable hypotheses and established truths that cannot be questioned? Are there visionary scientists scared to propose and pursue their intuitions? This essay poses a serious criticism about scientific communication in the Internet era, in view of the advent of Artificial Intelligence. We analyze the arXiv moderation system and its contrast with the very essence of the scientific method according to which “the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual” [Galileo (1610)].
The Name of the arXiv: when too much zeal is an obstacle to science
Told truthfully and brilliantly. I am amazed and pleased by how well you put it. Couldn't agree more. Respects!
The views presented in this essay are true and speak of an urgency that needs to be attended. An example in support of this essay: Nuclear Physics B, Volume 987, February 2023, 116092 is in the grave yard: physics.gen-ph
It natural place was/is hep-th. I understand that its senior author appealed, but it has been denied by the high priests.
This essay deserves a special category prize.
Indeed it does. It must be recognised and given wide publicity. It might shake up the arXiv admin a teeny-weeny bit, maybe.
- Edited
Hi, the points of vue of this essay are relevant about how act the circles of peer review journals and arxiv, the politics and rules and moderations indeed sometimes can imply some problems and like you toild it is important this creativity, the imagination and the innovations even if it is not conservative if I can, I believe that there is like a problem in the sciences community and mainly also inside the theoretical physics community, they are conservative and it is like if it was not permitted to think differently .
Administrator Note - discussion of an off-topic alternate theory of reality removed
congrats for your essay about the psychology if I can say around the institutions, the peer review journals, arxiv.....regards
Great article; it deserves a prize! Finally an essay offering more than the usual anodyne, commonplace suggestions.
It hits home. I too have been reassigned to "physics.gen-ph" and have had two published papers blackballed with no explanation given.
Issues about arXiv are very well argued. This is really like a prerequisite for reading my essay titled "A Robust Community-Based Credit System to Enhance Peer Review in Scientific Research", where, between pages 2-4, I dedicated a section to talk about arXiv's monopoly. Some very interesting statistics about arXiv's reclassification and rejection are shown in my essay. Take a look if you are interested.
Tejinder Singh
Thank you, I am very grateful for your appreciation. The issue can no longer be postponed for the sake of scientific progress. In science, inquisition trials without an adversarial system are not admissible, no matter how smart the judges are supposed to be. This sacred principle of the scientific method seems trivial but is forgotten every day.
Dharam Ahluwalia
There are a great many scary stories similar to the one you reported and I personally know many of them. No one knows how extensive the problem is. Each story highlights the contradictions and shameless machinations of the arXiv moderation system or the other institutions that follow similar policies.
Steve Dufourny Thank you. The redundant dynamics in the scientific debate you mention could be an indirect consequence of the advent of the internet. The mere suspicion that there are blacklists of those who propose new ideas is enough to make people desist from proposing new ideas. For those who work in theoretical physics, the simplest thing to do in order not to ruin their career is to take one of the various superinflated theories you are talking about and add some patches to it. All this kills creativity.
Paul Klevgard Thank you. I am sorry to know that you have reclassified papers, even if they were already published in a scientific journal. This is precisely the intolerable thing from my point of view. How can a website moderation system, in a few days and without giving justifications on the scientific merit, claim to be more effective than a peer-review in an academic journal where at least the referee provides a report on which to discuss? A scientist has rights and among these is the right to know if the results obtained are right or wrong, and why?
If these rights are not guaranteed, science cannot fully evolve. The only way to discriminate between fringe science and brilliant new scientific ideas is not censorship but verification or falsification on the scientific merit of the ideas.
Wanpeng Tan I will read carefully your essay and give you feedback. It sounds very interesting.
Being from a community which does not use arXiv itself, but does use similar preprint repositories, I found it a really interesting essay. I cannot assess how true the claims are, but if the procedures in any way resemble their description, there is indeed a serious issue for the physics community (and maybe others) to disseminate uncommon views. However, even assuming that all of this is factually correct, the rhetorics comes accross as one-sided and somewhat bitter to me. I think it is telling that the essay does not at all address the role of the community which grants arXiv this quasi-monopoly. In addition, while there might be a serious risk for freedom of scientific speech, the essay does not address that, arguably, despite these shortcomings the preprint system has overall increased possibilities to disseminate uncommon views, as compared to a system where knowledge is disseminated thorugh peer-reviewed articles only.
As a sidenote, I find it somewhat simplified to assume that without progress in physics, progress in other sciences will also come to a halt, with an underlying assumption of a one-directional cascade. Insofar as other sciences will indeed be limited in their theories by deficient physical understanding, they would in turn impact on the physical theories themselves and drive the physics field forward.
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...
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.
- Edited
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.
- Edited
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.