As for protection, I am not a lawyer, and cannot discuss copyright issues. If you are worried about intellectual priority, in my opinion any of these (arxiv, vixra, RG, others) would be adequate. However

- note that intellectual priority is not the same as copyright. Many times someone comes out with some idea, only to have a later paper become the standard and the idea (equation, etc.) even named after the later author. This is very common, and realistically, there is only so much you can do about it. There is, for example, no court you can go to establish your priority (and attempts to go that route tend to end badly).

- Having said that, in my experience, in many cases people are too optimistic about the novelty of their ideas. It is a big world, people in many countries have been doing physics a long time, with lots of published papers, and it is rare for an idea to be truly new. That, in my opinion, doesn't matter much either, as long as the idea is appropriate for the case in hand.

So, I would recommend you worry about getting your research and your ideas in good order and publishing them as best you can, and making the best case for them you can, in print, in meetings and in places like this one. The rest is, frankly, not really under your control.

It is also my experience, by the way, that at a sufficiently advanced level physicists do not care about credentials. That does not mean they will accept any idea, but it does mean that they will accept good ideas, regardless of whom they come from. I am sure, if your ideas are good, you can find arxiv sponsors.

You need a sponsor. What I would suggest is, look for papers on similar topics on arxiv, see who submitted them, and ask if they would sponsor you. (Or, take a list of your close colleagues, and see if any as eligible to sponsor you.)

Note that certain types of ideas are subject to arbitrary rejection, which I have experienced, and which frankly has made me very cynical about arxiv.

And, don't forget to post your paper here on RG !

Roger,

I concur with Marshall's experience. In general, I think that arXiv sees itself as a pre-publication repository for articles that generally meet the requirements for publication in scientific journals. BTW, every arXiv abstract page includes, near the bottom, a link: "Which authors of this paper are endorsers?". For example, see http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6203.

There is an alternative site that is, I think, intended to provide a less restrictive preprint repository - http://vixra.org/. I have no experience using it, but others have...

Thank You for your prompt and on point responses Marshall and James.

Two of my concerns are:

to make sure I get/retain credit for being the first to come out with the proposed Hypothesis.

second to have the idea taken seriously to the extent warranted.

i have two requests to ARXIV published scientists in the relevant field to sponsor, but not likely they will go out on a limb for an unknown, and uncredentialed, like me.

does pre posting a paper on RG provide any protection?

i plan to check out VIXRA now.

best,

roger

As for protection, I am not a lawyer, and cannot discuss copyright issues. If you are worried about intellectual priority, in my opinion any of these (arxiv, vixra, RG, others) would be adequate. However

- note that intellectual priority is not the same as copyright. Many times someone comes out with some idea, only to have a later paper become the standard and the idea (equation, etc.) even named after the later author. This is very common, and realistically, there is only so much you can do about it. There is, for example, no court you can go to establish your priority (and attempts to go that route tend to end badly).

- Having said that, in my experience, in many cases people are too optimistic about the novelty of their ideas. It is a big world, people in many countries have been doing physics a long time, with lots of published papers, and it is rare for an idea to be truly new. That, in my opinion, doesn't matter much either, as long as the idea is appropriate for the case in hand.

So, I would recommend you worry about getting your research and your ideas in good order and publishing them as best you can, and making the best case for them you can, in print, in meetings and in places like this one. The rest is, frankly, not really under your control.

It is also my experience, by the way, that at a sufficiently advanced level physicists do not care about credentials. That does not mean they will accept any idea, but it does mean that they will accept good ideas, regardless of whom they come from. I am sure, if your ideas are good, you can find arxiv sponsors.

Roger, I have been submitting on arxiv for quite some time, so I have an idea how it functions. At the beginning, everybody could post a paper, there was no endorsement. The refereeing was done by comments of readers of the mailing lists of new papers. Now if you are a "first timer" you have to find an endorser - usually someone who has experience with arxiv and/or someone familiar with your work. The endorser receives a request from arixv, a link to your proposed submission, and a set of questions from arxiv.

Moderation at arXiv is arbitrary and having an endorsement does not ensure that your preprint will be allowed. I have received more than three endorsements from active researchers only to be given additional requirements such as having a prior publications record or publishing the relevant articles first. If your research challenges the status quo regardless of quality or correctness, chances are that your account will be flagged for future attempts and the submission will be removed. For example, my article from last year has already been accessed by 800+ unique IPs between vixra and ResearchGate (nearly 10 times the usual rate) but was continuously rejected without reason by arXiv moderation.

To get around this obstacle I would recommend ResearchGate, Google Scholar, Vixra and personal websites to host preprints until the option of publishing becomes available. If you know active researchers who take interest in your idea, trying to include them in the article will boost your odds. In terms of copyright, this pertains more to images, word for word plagiarism and rights to make copies and such (a work is copyright when it is put into a fixed form). There is also the form of plagiarism when someone attempts to take credit for your work, discoveries or fails to give references for borrowed concepts. Having a version sent to the copyright office for an official record will substantially increase your odds at winning any dispute in the US, although I’m unsure how things work elsewhere. You would need to show damages such as lost award money, grants, sales, ect. With the internet, it is more difficult to have credit for work stolen because there is physical proof of who was first along with greater access. If you have a good theory your best bet is to get it into a fixed form without any major mistakes (because then someone can fix them and get substantial credit), try to publish and if allowed by the journal(s) upload the preprint. When all conventional journals are exhausted and your censored from arXiv, then I'd go for an official copyright and wide-spread availability through any means necessary.

Roger, why not get your work published in a peer-reviewed journal? There would surely be no problem in putting it on arXiv then.

I am always disappointed to see how many papers that have merely been submitted to a journal appear on arXiv. The accepted journal paper is almost certain to be different (even if only in minor details) and this can only sow confusion. I suppose the counter argument is speed of getting data/ideas into the literature, but I don't think this should outweigh due process.

The physics and astrophysics field is full of "crazy" ideas that get published and eventually become widely accepted - e.g. dark matter, dark energy, pulsars, black holes, MOND, inflation,etc. etc.. I simply don't buy the argument that radical ideas are suppressed by the "establishment". There are too many counter examples for that to be generally true. If the science is good and the evidence strong, it will make it into print.

The best way to get credit for your ideas is also to get them published in a peer-reviewed journal. You will (for free) almost certainly get a detailed referee's report on your work, which might improve it. Of course there is a risk of rejection, but is it just possible that this rejection might have to do with the scientific merit or otherwise of a work rather than a desire to cover up dangerously thought provoking material?

Most of the "crazy" ideas that are accepted however explain some anomaly relative to the big bang paradigm. Dark matter for example to explain galaxy/cluster formation and rotational curves (MOND is an alternative here), dark energy to explain "accelerated expansion", inflation to explain observations of the CMB and black holes for the validity of the underlying field equations used in big bang cosmology. “If the science is good and the evidence strong, it will make it into print” really has two sides. If you have good science and strong evidence but the conclusion does not support big bang cosmology, then it will either take a very long time to make it to print or perhaps never (mainstream journals like MNRAS, AJ, ApJ, ect). People who produce work like this are usually not working with others and therefore commonly lack the required funding without waivers for publishing fees.

This is why viXra was created, because out of the thousands of papers that are pseudoscience there are perhaps 1 or 2 legit theories/findings being censored by arXiv. However, I have found many examples of poor articles or pseudoscience on arXiv, so as I’ve said the filter process is arbitrary and based upon personal opinion.

From 2009, but the same rules apply today:

“But Ginsparg, who now sits on arXiv's advisory board, denies the existence of any blacklist or system for automatically rejecting papers written by certain authors. He told Physics World that Cornell’s filtering system is only biased in the sense that it seeks "to accommodate the interests of people within the research community" and not "outsiders".”

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/jul/15/fledgling-site-challenges-arxiv-server

"If you have good science and strong evidence but the conclusion does not support big bang cosmology, then it will either take a very long time to make it to print or perhaps never (mainstream journals like MNRAS, AJ, ApJ, ect)."

Michael, I dispute this and your reply shows that you understand the point that supernova cosmology, the primordial lithium abundance, structure formation etc. - all these things when originally published DID (and still do) challenge the established paradigm of the hot big-bang and have resulted in considerable modifications to our understanding of cosmology and the search for new physics. The status quo is not defended at all costs (e.g. the brief superluminal neutrino controversy); I for one will be happy to embrace a new cosmology once it is shown, using hard evidence, to be a better model for the universe than the big bang is now. As far as I'm aware, most astrophysicists share this point of view.

In my experience - and I have had plenty of unsolicited manuscripts thrust in my direction - there seems to be an unwillingness from some authors to accept that they DO NOT have a convincing argument and therefore resort to conspiracy theories rather than face up to the fact that they either need to do more work to support their ideas and convince their peers or go back to the drawing board. Proper scientists face up to this *all the time*. You say "People who produce work like this are usually not working with others", right, and the reason is often that they won't listen to anyone else.

By the way, what is a "mainstream" journal? Would that be those that adopt peer review? It is currently free to publish in MNRAS, so no-one should use funding as an excuse. I really don't have any particular axe to grind in this discussion (and by the way am not a cosmologist at all) other than that I am a strong supporter of peer review as the least-worst option and this is where arXiv have a problem. If indeed there are "thousands" of pseudoscience papers appearing on some other forums well I don't want to wade through all that to find proper science pursued via proper scientific methods and so arXiv has to adopt some kind of threshold to keep the mountain of rubbish at bay or become an unuseable service. We're back to my original suggestion, get stuff published in a peer reviewed journal and then see if arXiv refuse it; if they do I'll agree that it is unacceptable censorship.

"... get stuff published in a peer reviewed journal and then see if arXiv refuse it..."

http://arxiv.org/help/primer states, under "Goals and Mission":

"arXiv supplements the traditional publication system by providing immediate dissemination and open access to scholarly articles (which often later appear in conventional journals)."

This is not consistent with the suggestion that authors first gain approval for journal publication before submitting articles for archive in arXiv. As I understand, many if not most subscription journals would not allow alternative, open access to their published manuscripts.

The arXiv primer continues...

"It is important to note, however, that arXiv is not a repository for otherwise unpublishable material, nor is it a refereed publication venue. The moderation process is essential to ensuring that submissions are of value to the arXiv communities, but there is also a limit to the ability of administrators and moderators to provide feedback on submissions that are determined to be inappropriate for arXiv."

There's the rub - arXiv moderators make decisions about what they consider unpublishable material without any explanation. In fact, many papers that are accepted by arXiv are subjected to an extensive period of editorial (peer) review when submitted to a journal - and may never be accepted for publication.

As I understand, it's also helpful to be associated with an academic institution, even if only as a student - it's been suggested that unaffiliated submissions may be rejected with little consideration...

In fact, the physics community is - like all professional groups - naturally a closed community and members are not likely to give much consideration to "rubbish" submitted from outside sources, especially when those submissions do not comply with standards required of formal submissions by professionals.

Let me give a specific example of 'rubbish' in the view of this professional information systems analyst: what is the fundamental difference between dark matter and modified gravity theories? The correct answer is: _nothing_! Both merely adjust gravitational evaluation results to fit assessments of observed gravitational effects. However, the physics community is very deeply committed to the presumption that some unidentified form of dark matter (particles) must physically exist and dominate identified matter...

BTW, as I understand, suggesting that dark matter may not exist is strongly discouraged by peer reviewers in nearly all journals, even if your results support that conclusion.

I’ll have a preprint ready within two weeks that conclusively rules out the big bang theory in support of a static space-time metric with global gravitational potential. The problem is that I can’t post it to arXiv during the peer-review process and even if it is accepted for publication there’s a chance the moderators will still remove it (their own claims). So how is the scientific community meant to embrace a better cosmological model when it is being censored by the central preprint server?

Let me outline my personal experience so far:

1. Wrote a thesis/book on deriving per particle solutions to general relativity and the foundations of my cosmological model. Had direct evidence, required only classical physics and fit observations better than LCDM.

2. Got endorsement from several individuals who studied the relavent subjects.

3. Successfully uploaded paper, which was then taken down within 24 hours without explanation.

4. Tried to publish with several journals and could not make it to peer review.

5. Finally found a newer peer-reviewed journal that would accept it for review. Wasted nearly 4 months; was told it needed to be shortened from 70 pages to 25 pages at the last minute.

6. Wrote a shorter article with only cosmological aspects.

7. Got accepted for peer-review at JCAP

8. Uploaded to arXiv through endorsements, was told it would be announced in a few hours. Got automatically placed on hold, then rejected several days later. Was told the moderators do not need to provide an explanation.

9. Then received a 1 paragraph review that was flawed. Refuted the claims with recent research and direct observations; was told I could resubmit either the same paper or a revised one.

10. Added additional proof to reinforce claims and explained the situation to the editor; received a similar but shorter review that was worse than the 1st.

11. Was told I could not resubmit because I had been given two chances, even though the reviews were completely flawed and unprofessional.

12. Wrote a new article that increased the original amount of direct evidence from one to six (including a >3.5 sigma confirmation using CMB B-mode polarization from WMAP three year); will see what happens in a few weeks.

I agree that most of the stuff rejected out there is pseudoscience; however, the current system would also reject the 0.01% that ends up being a once in a century discovery. Challenging the big bang paradigm as proven will result in censorship from arXiv, lack of proper peer review and very long waiting times in getting a real discovery out. It is quite simple to differentiate between pseudoscience and something to take seriously. Are there predictions, mathematical procedures, clear definitions, ect? Not… well it challenges what we want to be correct so it’s rubbish. FYI, I’m not a hobbyist, but someone who started taking graduate level courses a year into a physics undergrad program. I’d say that there is a good chance this is one of those very rare situations.

Michael, good for you, at least you are trying to get your material into a peer-reviewed journal - if you think your work is important/correct then don't give up. However I would be concerned with your statement

"Then received a 1 paragraph review that was flawed."

As I said to you. Most scientists will at some point receive highly critical referee's reports or paper rejections. Either you sit down and figure out why you can't convince your fellows/peers or join the ranks of the pseudo-scientists. Please don't resort to conspiracy theories - there isn't a conspiracy.

James, no argument with your idealised view. But in the real world you have to work harder to get your ideas heard when you are not established and have no track record. I'm not suggesting that nobody should ever submit papers prior to peer-review to arXiv (I don't, but perhaps that's just my standards), I am saying that if a paper is accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal then I don't see how arXiv could refuse it and I would back anyone who found themselves in that situation.

Your understanding of the publication process is not correct. All the main astro journals allow the posting of an accepted paper on arXiv, I wouldn't know about physics journals.

Yes, I suppose that I am not the only one who has received a biased or unprofessional review, as I have heard others discuss similar experiences here. I think a major problem for individuals in a situation like mine is that they are not receiving the feedback they need to address possibly unconvincing arguments and/or flaws. For example, there was a thread on here about the CMB being a farce (and a bunch of non-mainstream articles), which could have been resolved a long time ago with proper consulting. Nonetheless, from the one or two flawed arguments against my paper during peer-review, I’ve been able to reinforce it with several observations to avoid a repeat. I’m not claiming its some type of conspiracy, as I really have no idea what’s occurring behind the closed doors of arXiv moderation. Perhaps it is incompetence, ignorance or simply something being overlooked. However, the reason is irrelevant because censorship is the process of restricting access to some type of information by a governing body or group.

To sum things up, these are the challenges people face in similar scenarios:

1. Cannot upload preprint to the central preprint server -> less feedback and outreach to the scientific community -> less chance to realize a mistake or be more convincing.

2. Must go beyond what would normally be considered a convincing argument or solid evidence (for example, requiring six pieces of evidence instead of one). In fact, I had a journal tell me that I must show ALL observations are in agreement when proposing an alternative theory, which seems somewhat impossible for a single article. This is quite ironic, as even LCDM cannot achieve that through thousands of published articles.

3. Most mainstream journals are unwilling to stick their necks out for something that challenges the status-quo, but some will accept for review if its not pseudoscience.

4. The peer-review process can be flawed due to poor or biased reviewers, while leniency is more prominent for papers supporting the status-quo.

5. Usually working on their own because no university is going to employee someone who is challenging the status-quo and has yet to be recognized. This is also true with graduate programs/thesis topics. Surprisingly, most of the greats worked on their own rather than in large research groups.

6. There is a lot of noise from the pseudoscience community that commonly drowns out legit scientists who have reasonable evidence against the status-quo (or evidence supporting an alternative theory).

7. Unless published in a peer-reviewed journal or at least allowed onto arXiv, it is almost certain that the research is going to be ignored by the scientific community and media (I believe that this is your central point).

R. Jeffries,

"I'm not suggesting that nobody should ever submit papers prior to peer-review to arXiv (I don't, but perhaps that's just my standards)..."

This approach clearly conflicts with the stated purpose of arXiv - again, see http://arxiv.org/help/primer which states, under "Goals and Mission":

"arXiv supplements the traditional publication system by providing immediate dissemination and open access to scholarly articles (which often later appear in conventional journals)."

Immediate dissemination cannot be achieved by posting only peer-reviewed manuscripts, as there is most often a significant delay between journal submission and acceptance.

"Your understanding of the publication process is not correct. All the main astro journals allow the posting of an accepted paper on arXiv, I wouldn't know about physics journals."

I'm neither a physicist nor a lawyer, and I haven't published any research since 1984, but it is not at all clear to me that "all the main astro journals" licensing agreements allow subsequent posting of the final reviewed manuscript to arXiv. Some at least, seem to specifically grant the authors the right to archive on their own web sites, and some to the authors' academic institutions' archival sites - see http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/page/Copyright%20and%20permissions and http://www.nature.com/licenceforms/npg/mpl-ltp.pdf for example. This seems to indicate that no other distribution rights are granted to the authors.

In actual practice, again there are many papers in the arXiv archive that have never been published - obviously those authors posted unreviewed manuscripts. I'd have to say that in most of the arXiv papers I've seen, the latest version was loaded prior to publication and the published version often contains significant updates to the latest arXiv version.

James,

You are correct in the stated goal of arXiv; however, “scholarly articles” is open to interpretation by the moderators. There are many examples of articles that were never submitted to journals prior to being uploaded. In fact, I found several examples online of individuals or groups who recently were able to submit their first articles to arXiv without a prior publication record (I however am being required to have a prior publication record before receiving the chance to upload, at which point the decision to remove is still up to moderation). Furthermore, there have been some influential papers uploaded to arXiv prior to submission to journals, which likely aided in getting published.

In terms of filtering pseudoscience however, arXiv has an effective system in place that really requires minimal if any interference by moderation at all. The endorsement system was implemented a while ago and requires a submitter to find an author who has recently uploaded one to five papers to arXiv (depending upon category). The rules state that people who have not submitted before must receive endorsement, commonly by sending a copy of the paper to said individual(s) prior to being allowed to upload the preprint. The key to this however is that individuals who endorse pseudoscience or unscientific papers can have their endorsement rights revoked by moderation. First off, this provides clear incentive not to endorse pseudoscience from individuals who have proven that their own work is indeed scientific. Second, what is the purpose of such systems when it can be overridden without explanation by the moderators? In reality, the endorsement system is just smoke and mirrors to distract from what is actually taking place behind the scenes; science based upon opinion rather than facts. Now, if this was a private program I would have no problem what-so-ever with these actions. However, arXiv was built upon a considerable amount of public funding for the benefit of both the scientific community and general public. Unless Cornell is willing to fork over millions of dollars for the rights to do whatever it wants to arXiv, I think its time for some transparency and proper administration.

I decided to publish 'The Pearlman Spiral' cosmological redshift hypothesis and cosmology model in book form, the first public review edition is available now on Amazon.

First formulated in April of 2013.

It explains why our natural observation of distant starlight demonstrate:

An Earth/Sun ecliptic centric universe. (edit- the visible universe approximates the entire universe).

A static universe. (edit - ie past, not ongoing cosmic expansion)

and 

The age of the universe being in line with the Torah testimony narrative and 5776 year timeline.. (edit- an age cap in years = the LY distance to the nearest departure point of any visible light here/now that was ever subjected to cosmic expansion, so about 1M years max. have elapsed subsequent to the cosmic inflation expansion event that was relatively early in the history of the universe.).

Any serious review scrutiny and endorsement/s to the extent warranted, would be most welcome.

Shannah Tovah 5776 (edit: Rosh HaShannah 5776 was almost 3 years ago it now being 10 months in to 5778 anno mundi)

roger m.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1517214122

OK I am looking to build a team to work on this 'SPIRAL vs Hubble' equations' paper. Now on edition 1.8.

To edit and improve the presentation to the point where it is suited for submission to..

the paper if SPIRAL, vs if SCM,

on the increase in distance with increase in cosmological redshift ..