ArXiv.org is the best thing to come along in science... It is a scientific revolution, a freely sourced depository for scientific papers. Free to publish and free to download. It is true there are no "peer-reviews", but it is really up to you to review any paper read, even from those more celebrated sources, like Cell, Nature, etc. You do need to be endorsed before you can publish on ArXiv.org, also, your papers are read through and if it is total garbage, the editors will flag your paper and refuse to publish it.

What are the benefits? It removes the science mafia from blocking new, novel and controversial papers. It is also free, most of our research is payed for by taxpayers, hence, it should be free to all. Most peer-reviewed publications only publish "accepted" theory, hence, a lot and I mean a lot of the papers published by peer-review journals are the same old garbage churned out again and again; it is a real bore.

Does the lack of peer-review hamper or undermine the validity of papers? That is a matter of preference. I have read many a paper from peer-review journals and found many mistakes, errors and down-right garbage. In my opinion, just because it has been peer-reviewed, well, it means absolutely nothing to me. It does not validate, strengthen nor elevate the paper's worth in my eyes. I must read it for myself and "review" that paper for myself. 

This is a voluminous subject: peer-review versus open-source; just look at the war between Microsoft and Linux, it is exactly the same issue. 

The origin of ArXiv.org was to be a depository for High-energy physics experiments, where scientist could publish results rapidly, before going to the more "accepted" journal outlets, which could take up to 2 years before those journals completed all their reviews and modifications. Scientists wanted a means to cement their results before others reproduced them and made the mad dash to the journals. 

Over the years, ArXiv.org has become more of a place to publish highly controversial papers, results that would not be generally accepted. There are examples of truly forward thinking papers being published on ArXiv.org, e.g.Grigori Perelman, who gave a proof for Poincare's conjecture.

The reason for ArXiv.org, the need for it and the reason many would concentrate on it? Peer-reviewed journals are reviewed by your "peers", which can often mean stuffy, old men who refuse to see anything new or would never publish anything that would show their entire life's work as bogus. In other words, it is a way to circumvent the scientific mafia and associated goons, a way to get out there new and forward thinking material, also, it satisfies one of Science's greatest tenants, that all results would be available to all freely and without any barrier.

One of my main problems with the peer-review journals is the immense amount of money they want for each and every article! I mean, enough already, the taxpayers payed for the research and the fee to peer-review, but on top of that, these journals demand further extortion.  

It has been my experience that ArXiv.org is willing to publish well-researched and controversial papers. If they deny to publish a paper, then it is probably total garbage. As with anything, you'll need to fish around to find a source for any given paper. Sometimes, no one wants to publish it, no matter the content. What can I tell ya?

There is time and place for all papers... ArXiv.org is not for all papers! I have a set of papers that I know would not be best published on ArXiv.org. It's just the nature of the beast. 

Dear Demetris,

Thanks for this piece of information. Unfortunately, I have never heard about arxiv.org. What you have written about it seems not to be confidence-building. What is the scientific focus of this journal?

Dear @Demetris, I am surprised with your experience regarding arXiv.org. As I have no experience with, I have visited their page for self informing. It is stated that :"arXiv is an e-print service in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance and statistics. Submissions to arXiv should conform to Cornell University academic standards. arXiv is owned and operated by Cornell University, a private not-for-profit educational institution. arXiv is funded by Cornell University Library, the Simons Foundation and by the member institutions."

I do believe your experience and I express concern for the famous Cornell !!!

http://arxiv.org/

ArXiv.org is the best thing to come along in science... It is a scientific revolution, a freely sourced depository for scientific papers. Free to publish and free to download. It is true there are no "peer-reviews", but it is really up to you to review any paper read, even from those more celebrated sources, like Cell, Nature, etc. You do need to be endorsed before you can publish on ArXiv.org, also, your papers are read through and if it is total garbage, the editors will flag your paper and refuse to publish it.

What are the benefits? It removes the science mafia from blocking new, novel and controversial papers. It is also free, most of our research is payed for by taxpayers, hence, it should be free to all. Most peer-reviewed publications only publish "accepted" theory, hence, a lot and I mean a lot of the papers published by peer-review journals are the same old garbage churned out again and again; it is a real bore.

Does the lack of peer-review hamper or undermine the validity of papers? That is a matter of preference. I have read many a paper from peer-review journals and found many mistakes, errors and down-right garbage. In my opinion, just because it has been peer-reviewed, well, it means absolutely nothing to me. It does not validate, strengthen nor elevate the paper's worth in my eyes. I must read it for myself and "review" that paper for myself. 

This is a voluminous subject: peer-review versus open-source; just look at the war between Microsoft and Linux, it is exactly the same issue. 

The origin of ArXiv.org was to be a depository for High-energy physics experiments, where scientist could publish results rapidly, before going to the more "accepted" journal outlets, which could take up to 2 years before those journals completed all their reviews and modifications. Scientists wanted a means to cement their results before others reproduced them and made the mad dash to the journals. 

Over the years, ArXiv.org has become more of a place to publish highly controversial papers, results that would not be generally accepted. There are examples of truly forward thinking papers being published on ArXiv.org, e.g.Grigori Perelman, who gave a proof for Poincare's conjecture.

The reason for ArXiv.org, the need for it and the reason many would concentrate on it? Peer-reviewed journals are reviewed by your "peers", which can often mean stuffy, old men who refuse to see anything new or would never publish anything that would show their entire life's work as bogus. In other words, it is a way to circumvent the scientific mafia and associated goons, a way to get out there new and forward thinking material, also, it satisfies one of Science's greatest tenants, that all results would be available to all freely and without any barrier.

One of my main problems with the peer-review journals is the immense amount of money they want for each and every article! I mean, enough already, the taxpayers payed for the research and the fee to peer-review, but on top of that, these journals demand further extortion.  

It has been my experience that ArXiv.org is willing to publish well-researched and controversial papers. If they deny to publish a paper, then it is probably total garbage. As with anything, you'll need to fish around to find a source for any given paper. Sometimes, no one wants to publish it, no matter the content. What can I tell ya?

There is time and place for all papers... ArXiv.org is not for all papers! I have a set of papers that I know would not be best published on ArXiv.org. It's just the nature of the beast. 

Dear Demetris,

I do not know your experience with arXiv.org to write that comment, but I can say with certainty that arXiv.org is one of the best scientific posting places that provides full editorship and scientific responsibility to the author. Of course there will be things they have to see (being invisible)  as to whether the article meets some kind of standards in their own measures, but unlike the peer reviewed journals of corporate culture that totally prohibit unknowns from their corporations of knowledge archiving, arXiv.org is blind of any thing and everything except the content of article it self.

That is the very reason the site becomes one of the most popular sites of postings of scientific findings and research results in mathematics, physics and other fields of science. The articles posted in arXiv.org are freely accessible, equally valid and trusted and with more readers than the ones in peer reviewed journals.

If  Galileo, Geordano Bruno, Bechamp, Becker, Naessens and Copernicus choose to publish their work today, it is more likely that the public will get to know their work through arXiv.org than any other 'peer' reviewed journals.  Let that be a good message to future Galileos.

I agree with Ljubomir and Luisiana. I have several times downloaded material from arXiv.org. I have read the its statement as given by Ljubomir. It is ding great service to the science and publish papers with nonconforming and contrasting viewpoints.

Like dear Mohammad, I have frequently downloaded papers from arXiv.org and haven´t stated any faults or anomalies. I think arXiv.org is an usable and useful org.

I think there might be an unrecognized issue, which at least seems to be the only rational explanation why some extremely knowledgeable and respectable people have been banned by arXiv.

Submissions must hew to Cornell University standards, and it seems that automated screening software is used to scan submissions for conformity, and for keeping out submissions containing unacceptable terms, etc.

Now some non-native speakers of English sometimes misuse or misspell words, and some of these words are then wrongly interpreted by the scanning software as being other words (example: the word which, when misspelt, may turn into 'witch' after scanning) Once this happens, a red flag is set and the submitting author is then banned - apparently for life. 

Because the whole process is automated, it is extremely hard to undo.

I have no proof that this is what actually happens, but this scenario seems to me to be the only rational explanation for why excellent and well-credentialed folks have been banned - coincidentally perhaps all of the instances I know of involved non native writers. If anyone has another explanation I would love to hear it ?

Sorry guys, but "Cornell University academic standards" are just next list online:

http://www.orie.cornell.edu/academics/undergraduate/standards.cfm

and "ACADEMIC INTEGRITY HANDBOOK":

http://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/pdfs/AcadIntegHdbk9.06Rev.pdf

What has the above info to do with the real facts mentioned at my dataset?

Even so, look here, from second link:

"The Charge. The charge states the perceived violation, including the course, date and time in

which the perceived violation occurred.

• The Date for a Primary Hearing. The primary hearing must be held at least one week after

notification, unless both parties agree to an earlier time.

• The Right to Introduce Witnesses and Evidence of Innocence. The student is informed that

he or she may introduce any witnesses, including character witnesses, and any other evidence at

the primary hearing to establish the student’s innocence.

• The Availability of Procedural Advice. The Judicial Codes Counselor is a law student

employed by Cornell University who is familiar with the various University policies and

procedures, and is available to help members of the Cornell community. The faculty member is

required to inform the student of the existence of the Judicial Codes Counselor when notification

of the charge is given..."

Where does the above option exist in arxiv.org moderation?

Sorry, but the only thing I can see is the 'jungle rule"...

The ban for my case started from the article:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260291689

see also discussion:

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

I don't think that it was due to an error of 'scanning', as H Chris Ransford stated  above.

It is just POLICY:

You cannot publish articles that make questions about the 'earth over-heating' and 'climate change'.

Did you understand it?

Article An attempt to analyse the puzzle of global Earth temperature evolution

The moderators are human. I had one submission cause a problem, the moderator told me he and his colleagues were attempting to figure out where exactly to classify the paper. I removed my submission, for after some thought, the paper truly did not belong in any of ArXiv's categories. 

There are many reasons for rejection, but among them are that the paper's content has no real place at their website. I respect that and did not give any gripe about it. 

As for global warming, I have a paper on it as well. It is decidedly statistical in nature or it explores the statistics of paleoclimate data. This form or content could find a home at ArXiv.org, but given the emotional charge surrounding this topic, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if they refused the paper - if submitted. 

Once again, the cause for rejections are many, but compatibility of content is one of them as well. 

...can't take this stuff personally. 

Dear Luisuiana, I respect both you and your views.

But I cannot really understand the term '...but given the emotional charge surrounding this topic, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if they refused the paper - if submitted...' 

For me, if they were the so paradise place that everybody wrote in this discussion till now, then they wouldn't be affected by 'emotional charge'.

Sorry, but I think that science=truth and emotional actions should not be a part of a respectable scientific place.

Demetris, I was not referring to your case.  I'm not sure that the moderators are immediately 'human',  the first line of screening maybe operates by scanning software, or at least I see no other explanation why some people I know were banned - who did not violate any of the guidelines.

Scanning software as a first screening hurdle is deployed at other places (such as all 'letters to the editor' utilities everywhere), only submissions that sail through may then be considered for further review. 

Just a small remark about 'earth over-heating', the reason for my ban:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/11/02/record-cold-temperatures-weather/18369105/

As you see when we lock the truth, natural phenomena are fooling us...

This is a good paper, should be published. Italian Journal in Physics is very liberal, Demetris should try to submit there.

  Oh Demetris! Science equals truth? An ideal, an ideal to be undermined in time and by experience. Institutions, universities and other organizations do not seek truth, but profit. If you demand truth and your truth disagrees with the prevailing winds, then you will be thrown out on your #@!. Case in point, look up scientist being shown the door after 'questioning' the validity of global warming. The IPCC will shut off your funding, you will be discredited and denied any new funding. 

I cannot blame Cornell from avoiding all the ruckus surrounding the topic of global warming. It is not a scientific question, at least, not any more; but, it is a question of religion and "what you believe!" It is now a political question. Haven't you heard? The priests of the new religion declared anyone who denies the immortal truth of global warming, Kerry, Gore, etc, to be nothing more than heretics and rouge scientists. In fact, you're not even a scientist in their minds, once you question the "truth" of global warming, moreover, if you dare to do so, then you will punished severely. 

Rest assure, oh Demetris, there are many heretics or nonbelievers out here in the cold, you are not alone, not by a long shot. Just remember, the truth will enslave you.

Thanks Luisiana, your words are always sharp!

My friend jean claude has asked a similar question from Jan 2014:

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

There I found worse cases than my one...

Nothing is perfect... It is human nature to desire what is perceived to be exclusive, hence, maybe the reason for ArXiv's stricter rules. Like I said, the content of the paper in question may not be ideal for ArXiv's stated goal, as envisioned by the moderators, whether or not those moderators are serving what someone else would define to be proper or suitable. 

Here's an experience I had with a more mainstream journal-Biomedical optics. I submitted a paper, the reviewer rejected the submission based on this one issue - "It appears you do not reference certain important authors in your paper." The reviewer turned out to be a self-described "expert" in the field of dielectric properties and biological tissues. Besides the fact that this is self-serving, for the identity of the reviewer is the same as the missing authors in the reference, well, that pissed me off... so, I went on the hunt for another venue and found ArXiv. 

I read a lot of posts, here on Researchgate, about the scientific mafia, how one's paper was denied and the appeal to "science", the "truth" and other senses of justice; but, all in all, the entire thing is a menagerie of human-monkeys striving for relevance and attention, regardless of the paper's content. 

In time, maybe even ArXiv will run its course, maybe it too will die away... only to be replaced with more open sources still. We could see something like Researchgate, where one can post anything one may like, without scrutiny, a sort of scientific blog. The downside to this is that the internet would be flooded with papers, ideas, etc... I do not want to discourage open access and the freedom to express one's voice, certainly not, but we are fast living in an age of Noise. It was already the truth before the advent of ArXiv, where the number of journals, peer-reviewed and all, grew to such a mass that one could never read all of the papers being published. A veritable mountain of information, everyone was and still is publishing papers. With so much 'information', it is entirely difficult to find the signal buried within the Noise. Not to discourage multiple voices, let all sing their song, but the eventual end is to drown out any one voice, we are all relegated to equal probability of being known, heard or respected. 

In information theory, the probability of reception is equal to the logarithm of elements contained in that set, i.e. 1/N. If N should grow to a countably infinite number, that is, the number of humans on the Earth, some 7 billion, then what is the probability of your voice being received but a measly 1 over 7 billion. 

I predict a new age coming, there is gong to be a mad effort made by journals, open or not, to exclude more and more papers. This will increase the ire of many, whether deserving or not; yet, it will increase the perceived "worth" of that journal. What other recourse be afforded to any of these journals? What other course is there, except total Noise. 

Dear All,

Most of the thread participants were for ArXiv.org. I am very thankful to Demetris that he drew my attention to this journal.

I will also add... most of the articles actually published on ArXiv.org are, in their own way, rubbish, pure and simple - including my own. The point here: just because a paper is published in this or that journal means very little in the grand scheme of it all. 

My small summary, just for my RG friends, since most of the successful scientists think that, at least, they have a direct connection with a metaphysical definition of truth and goodness for all the rest of us.

Science has taken in a strange way the place of Religion. We could say that Science+Money=Religion of today. How does this relation works? Let's say that I am a powerful person that for some reason I belive that Theory X holds and this can be a source of profit, after establishing a new market, composed from 'dangerous materials' that X argues they are a cause of disaster. First of all I want a respectable set of scientists, who can 'read' by the 'good way' all relevant statistical data and interpret them by a way that supports X. Secondly I need publications and mass media promotion of the published 'researches'. Finally I will use my political power in order to co-organize and motivate other countries for the same task. What is the final result? A new market!

Cheers to political power!

And what is the role of shadow journals like arxiv? Of course, initially, they play the role of the 'last resort publisher': "Don't worry my little student or scientist, I am the good guy who will publish your work, send it to me..." The little and innocent student will send his/her works to the 'helpful publishers' of arxiv and then will feel good to see his/her name published.

But, all this works untill a bad 'keyword' is recognized, as correctly wrote our friend H Chris Ransford above: if this happened, then our little and blah blah student enters the 'black list' of arxiv.--> no article will never be published again.

So, the 'knowledge keeper' acts in two ways:

If you believe that all above have something to do with the definition of Science=Επιστήμη=Episteme, from the verb επ-ίσταμαι=ep-istamai=I know well, then please enlighten me...

Demetris, one thing, it's not that organized, really! They could give a crap if some theory is published that should undermine the entire edifice built for their profit. Mind you, so few read any one of these papers that it truly does not matter if it is printed or not. Moreover, so much of what is printed is, just as you described, for the expressed purpose of "proving" said narrative. It is politics. Hey, you're Greek, you remember Aristotle, right? Anyway, he wrote the book on the human-monkey and his social habits. By the way, those habits of social relations have a nasty tendency to bring social diseases. 

A word on those most celebrated and illustrious venues: it is a bit of master-slave psychology, to be sure, hence, if you don't "play the game" right, you'll be banished right fast, for sure. 

As for the papers and ideas themselves... well, what can one say, regardless if it is celebrated or despised, it is all meaningless in the end. With that said, we humans, especially when young, find it a true desire to "make our mark" on the world. Obviously, Science apparently offers an arena filled with lofty promises of "justice, truth, nondiscrimination, nonprejudicial, blah, blah..." Anyway, after getting slapped about for a period of time, one swiftly realizes that Science is about as smelly as all our institutions are, i.e. government, church, retirement plans, etc. 

As for Sophia, any relationship with her is truly a private one. If you are the type that "must be right", that is, you insist on pursuing the truth - as you understand it - then you'll stand alone, my friend. Remember, they forced Socrates to drink Hemlock, FORCED, I say! If you want to succeed... well, play along and get use to the idea that the club members get a kick out of torturing those poor souls who are "less fortunate". Hey, you'll have to participate once in awhile, to keep up appearances, and, in time, you'll learn to stomach you're new "great" life among the 'winners'. 

The description of ArXiv is off the mark, though, not to defend it, necessarily, but only to put the right countenance on it, namely, it is an underground venue, where one may display some idea or another. An idea that may or may not prove controversial. If any worth may be found within it, the mainstream organizations might pick up on it, you know, call it their own, besides, they have the money and funds to further pursue it, etc. Or, well, or the paper simply languishes... and forever more it just lay there. Just think of it, thousands, I mean thousands of scientific papers are published weekly, yes, weekly. A veritable flood, no less, and all of it to no real end. 

As for oneself, well, your truth is your truth and Epicurus did not promise that knowledge would bring you fame, riches or even friends; but, he did promise that such things of the mind would carry you through this cesspool with the greatest amount of pleasure and a pleasure that would last a lifetime, hence, that relationship built with Sophia is for a lifetime. A more modern sentiment or version would be melancholia, that particular state of depression, frequented by fits of rage that the intellectuals so often seem to suffer - God bless the little poor bastards. 

Thank you dear Luisiana,

You think and write as a genuine Philosopher and your writings seem to have come from many experiences, positive or negative.

I have paid attention to your key points, even since from past discussions, don't worry I am a grounded person.

I realize that Sophia is for ourselves only and not for making money.

I just want to present some hidden aspects, in case that other people will live the same sufferings...

Regards,

Demetris

Users can retrieve papers from arXiv via the web interface. Registered authors may use our web interface to submit their articles to arXiv. Authors can also update their submissions if they choose, though previous versions remain available. Listings of newly submitted articles in areas of interest are available via the web interface, via RSS feeds, and by subscription to automatic email alerts.

The situation is bi-directional:

Since it is a common secret that arxiv.org has a black list of banned authors, it is also an open information that moderators of arxiv.org are publicly available here:

http://arxiv.org/moderators/

while the advisory committee is here:

http://arxiv.org/help/scientific_ad_board

The above lists can be treated as black lists, ie you should not have any kind of relation with the above persons if they have black-listed you.

So simple.

PS After all, they are just 253 persons, if I counted them well...

Luisiana Cundin said of arXiv:

“your papers are read through and if it is total garbage, the editors will flag your paper and refuse to publish it.”

In other words, arXiv is a censored site, not a truly free depository for scientific papers. On the other hand the vixra site is not censored. vixra is a truly free depository for scientific papers. arXiv author endorsement is another censorial ploy. And as for “garbage” arXiv posts a large amount of that.

Well, garbage is too strong a word, I'll admit; but, as for open versus truly open, there are many other venues to post scientific work, many asking nothing more than to adhere to certain formatting rules. The real purpose of censorship, rather, peer-review is to form an exclusive venue for information. Ideally, that exclusivity is intended to create an outlet for scientific works that are "of the highest quality" (thus the reason I chose the word Garbage, for it stands to reason all other works are the opposite, at least, it is implied so - sorry about that); nonetheless, regardless of the intent, the outcome has been to create a self-serving, cronystic, corrupt society - what's new with that respect. Of course, this is the ire many express with respect to peer-review, that the quality of the material has steadily gone down over the years; hence, everyone is seeking some new means of communicating scientific work. Anyway, besides the intent behind peer-reviewed journals being undermined, open journals make an attempt to remedy; yet, entry with no barrier forms another problem, where information is buried within the ding of noise. So, this is a dualistic dilemma with no solution. 

I've had a similar arxiv banning experience. Please contact me. You can find my email address at my website ar-tiste.com

Dear Robert, 

I think that it is not worth spending our time with them.

Personally I realized that Elsevier is more ethical than arxiv.org and I submit my articles at its journals.

My regards

Demetris

Peer-review journals have so many submittals everyday to the point that they are refusing submissions by just looking at the abstract (at most). Then, they give you an automated option to a fast-track publication in the 'open' version of their journal, for which you have to pay (in some cases) thousands of dollars! When you manage to get through the first screening process, it is often a so long agony that may take several months, when you have to interact with burocratic editors and often bad reviewers, that one may wonder if they are really serious about what they are doing. Some publication companies have so many journals in the same and related fields that one may also wonder if they have all that readership for their publications. This means that most likely your paper will be for ever forgotten, and never read.The 'publish-or-perish' culture is the biggest incentive for the overwhelming growth of open and closed 'peer-review' journals. I am a retired professor, and fortunately I am free of the stress on being submitted to the arrogant attitude of most journals. To me, ArXiv.org is the best thing that appeared to circumvent the journal mafia. It is recommended, however, that ArXiv.org allows archival in the various other areas of science and technology.