I have suspicion that they reject works if see that one demonstrates definitive tendency to compete with so to say "commonly accepted theories". My opinion follows from reading your works and knowing one another guy with the same problem due to his non-orthodoxy.

I got two works accepted in arxiv.org, one paper and one book. But i also hear that some scientists complain about possible blacklisting policy, for further information please see http://www.archivefreedom.org

Thanks for your answer. They are sustaiined by several scientists, even Nobel Prize. What is disturbing is that they do not give any reason, there is no public policy, it seems that there is a small group of people who have empowered themselves to tell the truth. And of course they are not even good at that. I have two papers, one more blasphemous than the other, and this one passed.

Hi,

In the case at this blog: http://etheric.com/physarchive/history3.html, ArXiv not only rejected the paper but wrote to the other journal which was going to publish it, to not publish it.

As you can see above ArXiv goes a long distance to block it from getting published anywhere because the moderator did not like it. Either they really dislike new theories OR someone funds them to try and prevent certain fields.

Another instance: 1973 nobel prize winner:  http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/articles/arxiv_correspondence.html

Publish rather on researchgate.net

Check my papers on a method using existing technologies to push a particle beyond the speed of light at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265643274_Extended_principle_of_relativity_beyond_speed_of_light_and_a_method_to_push_particles_beyond_the_speed_of_light

Article Extended principle of relativity beyond speed of light and a...

Thank Shalender,

It seems that a bunch of bureaucrats at Cornell have appropriated arXiv for their own interests (or of their friends). Typical...

I will look at your papers..

As I understood personally, there exist not such a think like arXiv.org policy: It is the defnition of 'jungle rule', see my case:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_going_on_with_arXivorg_Is_it_a_shadow_journal_with_jungle_rule_to_govern_it

But, since this older question has many interesting infos, I realize that the situation is worse than I thought...

Jean-Claude, would you be kind telling us what was "blasphemous" (I reuse your own words) in the rejected paper ?

If you follow this starting thread (hereunder) you'll see that Jacques complained about the same things (rejection from arXiv). True to say that his interpretation of Quasars (QSO's) does look popular so far ;-)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_astrophysicists_reject_coherent_optics_to_explain_redshifts

To Patrice,

As I said there is no explanation of any sort. So why a paper is accepted or not is anybody's guess. In my case, after a non orthodox paper on QM (accepted) a less controversial paper on RG and fields has been rejected, as well as all the others. It seems that they use some coding in their computer system which rejects automatically people who have been blacklisted.

My last paper (submitted through the French server Hal) has been rejected with the E-mail from arXiv :

"Your submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators, who determined it inappropriate for arXiv. Our moderators suggest that you please send your paper to a conventional journal instead.

We strongly recommend the author submit their own work and not use CCSD as proxy.

Please do not resubmit this paper. Resubmission of removed papers may result in suspension of submission privileges.

For more information on our moderation policies see:

http://arxiv.org/help/moderation"

I wonder what would be the problem with a short paper (16 pages) dealing with statistics, and who is the academic priest that I would have offended. Moreover the submission to arXiv is automated from Hal.

You can have a look at this paper ("estimation of the probability of transition between phases") on this site. Beware that it gives the way to compute the probability of transition between bull and bear financial markets (as well as earthquakes) !

Dear jean claude, I took a look at your paper and I didn't find anything "blasphemous". It is a clear censorship, nothing else. The question could be who from the advisors board had the conflict of interest or what exactly was the "blasphemous" key-word that the machine recognized inside your paper (if the process is automated).

Dear Jean Claude, as ane example of what others are going through here is a copy of  my complaint send to arxiv today:

Dear arxiv moderators and supervisors

My paper "Random walk on quantum blobs"submit/1377191" was again put "on hold". The previous two papers was kept with this status, one*for over six months*, until it was published in Reports on Mathematical Physics. Even then it was wrongly reclassified from "Mathematical Physics"to "Physics".

No of the reasons listed applies "Submissions may be put on hold for a variety of reasons, ranging from questions about proper classification,pending moderator approval, presentation issues, copyrighted PDF, etc.,to editorial concerns."

There are no questions of proper classification, there is no need of moderator approval as top world experts were actively helping in preparing this paper. There are no presentation issues or copyright issues.

Since it happens third time, it clearly means that it* is a personal issue, some kind of "blacklisting*".

This politics is unacceptable in science and needs to be*widely exposed*, in particular to the funding institutions, like*Simons Foundation*.

I hope you will resolve this issue immediately and let me know that it happened by mistake.

Kind regards,

Arkadiusz Jadczyk

Copy to

Gerald D. Fischbach, M.D.

Chief Scientist of the Simons Foundation and Fellow of the

Simons Foundation

Thanks you for your post Arkadiusz, it seems that the diffusion of knowledge and innovation is, by far, a lesser concern for arXiv than the conservation of academic perks gained by the unrelented repetition of the words of the old masters.

I ran into this a few years ago: lazy administrators pushing their rigid rules into computers.  They are designed to keep it all within a small, select (elite) Club. 

Don't waste your time on these snobs, post on Academia.Edu which is more readily accessible.  Plus, they will take papers of any size; several of mine are 'monsters', well over 100 pages each (too much reading for lazy researchers). 

Dear Herb and Vania,

arXiv are just the worst representatives of what dominates the Scientific community nowadays : bureaucrats whose main role is to protect and preserve the powers of a clan, with the full support of 3 publishing houses whch bring huge profits (even ackowledged by the Economist !) in exploiting the work of undergraduates.

Thanks for Academia.Edu. Another advice : try Createspace, this is a company part of Amazon, you can create your book, printed or E-book, quite easily, it is sold on Amazon, you fix your price and get up to 65 % of the revenue. I have 1 printed and 1 E book, look the quality of the printed book : this is far better that Spinger ! and it easier to buy.

Best

Dear Jean Claude: I forgot to mention Vixra (Arxiv backwards) that will accept all papers & authors.  It's free and was was created by people who were sick of the secrecy & snobbery of the Arxiv gang, who deserve to disappear in obscurity. 

Thanks you, I use it.

I need to mention...Amazon. With their company Createspace you can build a book, quite easily, without all the fuss with "distinguished referees", and have it published on   Amazon, at not cost (you can even keep  75 % of the selling price). Look at my book Theoretical Physics on Amazon to have an idea.

Dear Jean-Claude:

Thank you for your quick reply and link to Amazon for your books. I put my writings on Academia.Edu as this makes them freely available.  Now, I too am retired on a small state pension, so I too no longer can buy books, so maybe you can link me to any pdfs of your core ideas, so I can study them?  We seem to view physics from a similar perspective: I prefer finite mathematics to the Continuum Hypothesis.  I too like to start from physical hypotheses and THEN go to mathematics, not the opposite (modern) approach that begins with ambiguous math symbology.  You too seem to favour a metaphysical approach, beginning with deep ideas on space, time, motion.  Yes, QM is an interpretive mess because it was invented by mathematicians and not physicists or engineers (although Dirac began as an electrical engineer, so he never lost his 'common-sense').  I reject ALL field theories as they were motivated by the religious views of Faraday and Maxwell (UET2).  They also rely on the concept of infinity which I always reject as another religious idea. My own ideas involve extending Hamiltonian quaternions into a form I call "Natural Vectors" (see UET1).  These are more powerful than Clifford Algebras but I am intrigued by your use of spinors as a basis for motion (I factored them in my Electron Theory - UET5).  I have studied Newton extensively and discovered that his original ideas were built on the concept of Impulse - not force, which was an approximation introduced to handle macroscopic bodies. My own physics begins with a replacement of Maxwell's views, going back to HV Lorenz (the Dane, not the Dutchman) - see UET2.  I also reject Hamiltonians and Lagrangians (because of the simplistic view of time) but I do build on Least-Action principles. 

 I am so pleased you made contact wit me; this may evolve into a correspondence of mutual interest.

Best wishes,   Herb Spencer

http://www.herbspencer.edu

Sorry: Bad weblink; here is the correct one.  

https://herbspencer.academia.edu

https://herbspencer.academia.edu

I agree with jean claude on Createspace value and I fully recommend it.

I sent one years ago and they did not accept it. Now that rejected article is part of a book. I have not sent another one.

Dear all,

following a second negative decision of the arxiv moderators on my papers.........

--cite---

Our moderators have considered your appeal, which has been rejected.

They feel that its content is inappropriate for arXiv.

While we acknowledge that your article is published,

our moderators determined it not of plausible interest for inclusion within arXiv.

Please find another forum.

For more information on our moderation policies and guidelines see:

https://arxiv.org/help/moderation

--

arXiv moderation

--end cite--

......I searched for "arxiv" and ""censorship" and dropped on this communication on researchgate about censorship in arxiv.

Absolutely independant of the actual content of my papers,

above formulations are a clear form of censorship in my view, as the moderators just "feel" the content to be "inappropriate" and

"determined it to be not of plausible interest for inclusion in arxiv"

The two papers are published elsewhere, but I wanted to reach out to a community I am not part of and get my papers critically assessed by many scientist and not only by few moderators.

Here are the links to the papers

The structure of the Bekenstein-Hawking formula has been derived based on mere geometric-statistic considerations:

Schmitz, G.J.: Entropy and Geometric Objects

Proceedings 2018, 2(4), 153; doi:10.3390/ecea-4-05007

It is freely available here: http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/2/4/153

The entropy formulations highlighted in this article had before already successfully been used to derive the Poisson equation of gravitation and terms related to the curvature of space. The formalism further lead to terms possibly explaining nonlinear extensions known from modified

Newtonian dynamics approaches. The respective refereed paper appeared in Entropy:

Schmitz, G.J.: A Combined Entropy/Phase-Field Approach to Gravity.

Entropy 2017, 19(4), 151; doi:10.3390/e19040151

It is freely available here: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/19/4/151

I would be curious about your opinions !

Best

George

Academic journals and their online gatekeepers, like ArXiv are maintained as a pseudo-objective medium for academic promotion; the pathetic claims for original research are just smokescreens.

Try posting on Academia.Edu where there are no Guardians of the Orthodoxy (so-called 'referees'); everything is accepted and is available to the whole world as one's papers are scanned regularly by Google.

For papers that are too original for arxixv.org there is an alternative: vixra.org

Arxiv has some serious allergy towards researchers that are not affiliated with one of the recognized academic institutions. Probably in the past they were beaten by someone with money and power for their "too weak censorship", so now they prefer to be always on the safe side. Anything too original, in their view, will have to go somewhere else.

Thanks for these hints...

Will probably go to academia.edu....

ArXiv was created to feed the competitiveness of too many scientists, who want to "Win the Race". Many great historical papers/books were often ignored on their first appearance as they were not fashionable.

Keep one's ego under control.

Arxiv is an automated reject system; optimized for prior users.

Dear Herb,

Actually this is not totally true : I have 3 papers on arXiv, accepted years ago, that I can even update ! But all new papers are rejected. It seems that they have changed their policy 5 or 6 years ago. The issue is if there is any algorithm which decides on a rejection without a review by a board member (besides on the size or the format) ? If it is so the simple honesty would require that the criteria are announced publicly.

Last time, a month ago, they wrote to me, along with rejection, that they use volunteers, not staff referees, so any reasons of rejection not available. The result also depends on particular section you use to apply. I definitely know that in one section "volunteer" hates me.

arXiv.org has suppressed publications even from Nobel Prize laureates; see: http://www.archivefreedom.org/casehistories.htm

You can use ResearchGate itself for uploading preprints:

https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/ResearchGate+DOIs

ArXiv is just another Old Boys' Club to help insiders with their careers.

I faced with the article rejection from arXiv when tried to announce my early results outside the current area of ​​activity. From the context it was clear that the moderator read only the title, since the first phrase of the abstract contained originality and novelty. Without much effort, I published this article in a reliable peer-reviewed source. But I didn’t solve the problem, because when the article waqs rejected my "endorsement" status as a specialist was reset.

It is a pity to lose such a possibility of fast publication, like arXiv. Probably need to come to terms with this. Unfortunately, databases are aging as well as people...

Mikhail Kharinov

Dear Mikhail:

Sad to see The Old Boys are still playing their games: promotion of them and their pals by restricting access to The Journals. Well it all depends if you view your own career in the same light. if you do, then you are condemned to play by their rules. If you simply want to share your insights with others (as I now have the luxury to do so, by following an independent path through life) then you can post your work on Academia.edu or ResearchGate; this will at least establish your priority if that is important to you.

Dear Dr. Herb Spencer,

I relate myself to the Old Boys you are talking about.

ArXiv is an indispensable tool of modern physics, which works well as it is. Any improvement can have the opposite effect.

However, arXiv sets an internal "endorsement" parameter, which is equivalent to the author's personal assessment. This parameter is set to zero when the moderator reject the article.

Moderators have no time to read the article attentively. Therefore, mistakes occur. Resetting the parameter in this case strains the author. If such a situation occurs periodically, then perhaps Dr. Paul Ginsparg will find it possible to correct the installation of the "endorsement" parameter. I just vote for it.

Regards.

Mikhail Kharinov

Dear Mikhail Kharinov,

"Moderators have no time to read the article attentively. "

This is part of the problem. Under the rule "publish or perish" scientist multiply papers with little interest, adding just some small improvement to well known subjects. And their fellows waste a valuable time to keep in touch with their field. All this for the benefice of 3 publishing houses which manage thousands of scientific reviews, sold at an exorbitant price.

Internet, and a site such as arXiv, is an opportunity to break with this policy. Let people decide what is of interest ! The publication of an article in a review has a cost, and any publisher has the right to control his expenses. The cost of listing an article on arXiv is null. The role of a moderator should be limited to a technical review (format) and to be sure that it does not infringe any law or common decency. But actually the "moderators" are the same as the "peers" who collude with the publishing houses. Whatever their claim of good faith, the picture is that of a fraternity of people who stick together to defend their business, their tenure, their fame, without much regard for the advancement of Science.

Dear Jean Claude Dutailly,

It should be noted that the cost of publication in the best peer-reviewed journals is zero, as in arXiv. However, the process is long and takes, say, a year. In this case, the authenticity of the subject is guaranteed not only by the author, but also by the reviewers. Arxiv provides to shorten the time of publication. In this case, it is assumed that we take responsibility for the correctness of the reasoning, representing our organization. The arXiv moderators control the scientific level of the article within their experience. Judging by the fact that the most articles on Computer Vision are accepted without any problems, their experience in this area is limited. Another thing is the Theory of elementary particles, the Gravity theory and the associated Physics. It seems that it is just physicists who work in arXiv. It may be difficult for them to accept new ideas if the latter are not detailed enough, as often happens when introducing a pilot study. So the problem may simply be that the article is too short.

Another thing is endorsement status. For me it was absolutely not important that the moderators earlier certified me as a specialist in a number of technical areas into which they divide Computer Vision. However, I was surprised when discovered that I lost this status by writing an article in another field. This does not seem logical. But I think that it is better to adapt to the policy of the arXiv rather than criticize it.

In any case, arXiv unobtrusively maintains the author’s collections of already published articles in a place known to everyone. This is difficult to change.

Glad you responded to my reply.

Best wishes.

Mikhail Kharinov

I have little experience of arXiv although I have one article accepted many years ago which I now realize very much needs correction and updating. I recently tried to do this submitting a rewritten version. I also submitted another paper which has been very successful on Research gate. Both were just deleted without explanation and with apparently no way of finding out the reason.

I find this shocking behavior from an institution like Cornell University.

Dear John:

Do not be surprised - this is still a conservative Old Boys Club to promote & protect the insiders; just like the "refereed" journals used to boost their careers: all just simple self-serving (like always).

Physics should be convergent where theories and experiment lead to a common conclusion thus keeping physics on the correct course. We no longer see this because mainstream physics contains a serious problem (mass and charge are not defined in terms of each other) which leads to a system of units based on assumption. It is this problem which prevents convergence and instead invites divergence which manifests itself as a whole slew of alternative theories of which we are bombarded with every day.

To protect their interests and to try and maintain convergence, physicists overly regulate papers as seen in arXiv. Until the fundamental problem is resolved by mainstream physics, there is no way to distinguish between the science (reality) and the science fiction.

The only way to have your papers accepted by arXiv is if you follow the same path (right or wrong) as that taken by mainstream physics.

I submitted a paper to be post on arXiv yesterday (November 24th) and informed me to get back to me in 2 days. Bur while I'm uploading my paper there was a question you have to answer if you have the wrote to do so. May be you didn't check this step. I believe this is necessary for them to accept or reject your request. I will inform you about my case when they finalize my request.

Scientific Journals are a scam that have outlasted their original value of communicating between enthusiasts who shared a common interest.

Today they are simply an Insiders' Game to justify promotions within universities by selective (hidden) referees and mutual citation scores. Meanwhile the Journal publishers make millions from taxation-supported university library subscriptions.

So, arxiv style site were created to promote ego-style precedence publishing.

What an Ego-driven community of so-called experts; a POX on all your heads.

Physics reached a road block over one hundred years ago, and in order for it to proceed had to make several assumptions. These assumptions were not completely correct, but they did allow physics to move forward and develop the standard model. To protect a theory which is not completely correct, physicists screen papers especially those that may under mine or weaken their stance.

https://scienmag.com/paul-ginsparg-named-winner-of-the-2020-aip-karl-compton-medal/

In the attached file I challenge arXiv's moderation policy. It is disgraceful. The attachment, in part reads,

The arXiv's moderation policy opens with the line, ``Unrefereeable content. arXiv only accepts submissions in the form of an article that would be refereeable by a conventional publication venue." This policy used in moderation process becomes null and void if a paper has already been refereed and accepted for publication by a reputed physics journal.

..... For papers accepted for publication by a `conventional publication

venue' the arXiv's right to hold, remove, or re-classify to widely perceived `crackpot' category is an abuse of its power. This policy, for fairness and rapid communication of scientific advances, is detrimental to the authors and to the scientific community.

arXiv is an obsolete process for inflating EGO's in the Me-First brigade.

I have abandoned arXiv altogether after they stated that I have to publish my work first for them to post my article in arXiv. If any article that does not comply with their world view, then it is automatically not suitable.

My personal opinion---arXiv, which is a mirror image of American Physical Society, is an entity that are run by jokers that cunningly permit plagiarism if the plagiarists are of their own kind, and if the victims of plagiarism are not one of their own. I have evidence for this accusation: See my recent comment on an article by Chiara Marletto and Vlatko Vedral, published by APS.

We all need to boycott sites like arXiv. Academia and ResearchGate work well.

Copernicus work was called by his contemporary Tolosani absurd, scientifically unproven and unfounded. Tolosani charged that: first, Copernicus had assumed the motion of the Earth but offered no physical theory whereby one would deduce this motion; second, Copernicus's thought process was backwards for Copernicus had come up with his idea and then sought phenomena that would support it, rather than observing phenomena and deducing from them the idea of what caused them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#Tolosani Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis who promoted hand washing and disinfection claiming that dirty hands increased mortality, that "conflicted with the

established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical

community... some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it"; he was committed to an asylum and slaughtered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis Examples like that abound. The establishment always protect itself be that in politics or science. ArXiv is just a tool to do so. Political establishments use police, psychiatric wards, jails, etc to protect themselves. Scientific establishments have their own tools, ArXive is just one of them.

"I have abandoned arXiv altogether after they stated that I have to publish my work first for them to post my article in arXiv."

A series of researchers have experienced even worse. This is just what they say initially. Then when even published in well respected journals (under platforms as IOP, springer, Elsevier) they have in many cases rejected without giving any reason. We talk about rejecting papers that have passed strict peer review, has been published in well respected journals. It is totally against the scientific spirit, totally lack of transparency. Even if arXive has many good papers the moderator process is totally non scientific, and it looks more and more like a club, than someone promoting science, I wonder if the main sponsors such as Simon Foundation are aware of how they now operate. ArXive used to be different...

great we have research gate and other good platforms. arXive is surfing much on that they where one of first well funded archives.

My suggestion for you is to write an article about it and upload it to as many places as possible.

"ArXiv rejections lead to spat over screening process" Article ArXiv rejections lead to spat over screening process

several I have talked with tells it has only got much worse since then.

One should expect a platform interested in science had some transparent process , like what journals are considered good, or bad, and if paper is published even in a decent journal (for example under IOP, Springer etc platforms) that they had to give a scientific reason why they want to reject. But no, they can simply state such things as

"While we acknowledge that your article is published, our moderators determined it is not of plausible interest for inclusion within arXiv.”

We are talking about papers in very well respected journals that have gone through peer review. This is nothing more than censorship agains ideas and perhaps even people moderators don't like.

Interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE5l7-UXlb8

ArXiv is nothing but the analogue of the "woke" in science. Arguing with ArXiv is like arguing with BLM. Fortunately, you can just say f..k the arXiv and go on with your life, there are plenty of other places to publish. I wish it was as easy with BLM. Other than that, there isn't really that much difference between them.