Is arXiv hindering the free progress of science by obscuring potentially innovative new ideas?
How far is the boundary of scientific freedom today? How much do academic gurus and corporate interests bias the scientific debate? 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)].
We propose that arXiv should accept papers published in highly-ranked academic journals and carefully respect the classification assigned by the editors, including during the public announcement on the arXiv daily lists if the paper is submitted after journal publication. This is in due recognition of the meticulousness of the peer-reviews, when compared to the superficiality of arXiv moderation, without wasting precious moderation time in useless work.
Read essay: Preprint The Name of the arXiv: when too much zeal is an obstacle to ...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication