Please read below the letter I sent to the Simons Foundation. Their emails are [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

You should write to them as well and bring up the issue. Below is the letter I sent. Let me know what you think in the comments below.

"Sorry about typos and occasional grammar errors in the below, I didn't try too hard and didn't have chatgpt to fix them.

I want to bring attention to horrible abuses being committed in the arxiv which you guys support through donations, more specifically the moderation process. It's totally arbitrary, non-transparent and disrespectful with the users. The mods think they are some superior divinity that has the last say on whether a certain scientific finding (be it in math or in physics) is publication worthy or worthless. At times years of work is just thrown into the garbage, as publishing a paper in a conventional journal is impossible, it takes years from submission to publication. When arxiv rejects a paper and asks that the author publish the paper in a conventional snail journal it's adding insult to injury.

I have read lots of grievances from authors (some of which are really bright people) that felt slighted, snubbed, harmed and even boycotted by the arxiv. All had suspicions that they were blacklisted by the arxiv. How can we not, if upon submission the paper is automatically put on hold and then rejected based on obscure secretive rules? There are lots of stories online about people who felt mistreated by the arxiv mods, even Nobel prize winners (this is factual).

They are also aggravated by the arxiv's mod's obscure passive-aggressive arrogant ways in which they go about rejecting a paper and censoring free-thought.

The arxiv is rejecting papers left and right as of late not because they are of low quality, but because of subjectivity and whims of the mods. If a given mod thinks a certain result is not publication worthy, do all others agree? Probably not! One result may not be too enticing to one mod, but it still doesn't mean that it's intrinsically inferior. It's impossible to rid the world of the relativity of things. Maybe a rejection should trigger a review by a second mod with no knowledge at all of the prior rejection.

The lack of transparency is what gives rise to authors feeling wronged by the arxiv's arcane and dubious approach to paper moderation. Will they ever adopt transparency and give factual feedback to authors? If they don't, how will authors ever be able to know what they did wrong, how can they improve?

The guidelines are too broad, too vague, and it's heartbreaking that they are treating people who live for science that way, they may discourage their passion for science and break their motivation to pursue breakthroughs that could lead to the advancement of knowledge.

Honestly, as the philanthropic entity that supports these people you need to demand that they do better!!

There are people giving their lives to the pursuit of scientific knowledge just to be humiliated and spat on by arxiv and their people. The mods can be very petty, condescending and arrogant, you need to ask them to do better than that!!"

A few articles that explain how often these guys botch the moderation:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arxiv-org-reaches-a-milestone-and-a-reckoning/