The quirks of arXiv
The physics preprint archive arXiv
is an excellent resource save for one thing. To post to the archive one uploads a paper, which
normally becomes available for anyone to view the next day (you can make
changes up to the cutoff time if you need to). The process works thus for ordinary, humdrum papers, but papers with
new ideas are liable to be caught by the rigid mechanism devised by the archive's
founder, intended to maintain standards by blocking
the upload of junk papers.
Whereas with journals a competent human being examines papers in detail
to assess their quality, arXiv uses a makeshift two-stage mechanism intended to process in quick time
the large numbers of submissions made every day. Stage one is an
automated process using an algorithm trained on conventional papers
but, as is well known, the
behaviour of algorithms is very dependent on the training sample, and
papers that are unusual in any way are liable to be rejected.
Submissions rejected by the algorithm are normally forwarded to human
moderators for the section concerned who make their own quick
assessment, a process not involving careful assessment. If the
arguments in the paper are easy to follow then fine;
otherwise, especially if a moderator has problems following the details in view of their novelty, the submission is liable
either to be rejected, or to be 'dumped' in a special area called
general physics, at the same time being marked 'unsuitable for
cross-listing', as a result denying the person submitting the paper concerned the
possibility of having the abstract included in the daily mailing for
the relevant subject area. The fact that a paper has already been
refereed and published by a journal apparently makes little difference:
moderators are king.
This kind of
situation is ripe for the exercise of moderator prejudice. Once upon a time, Nature kindly
published my comments on the situation
under the subtitle 'Putting control in the hands of a few can enforce
orthodoxy and stifle innovative ideas'. Nothing changed at arXiv
following this adverse comment, and there are many with good ideas who
have fallen foul of the
system.