A proposition: create a Physics Forums e-print server

[eljose]

A proposition: create a "Physics Forums" e-print server..

Hello i don,t know if this goes here but i have aproposition for the staff of PF, you know how difficult is nowadays to put your math, physics or other scientific paper on the web if you don,t have an endorser... so we could take advantages of free software to build a e-print server where the forumers can deposit their papers before sending to a journal or simply to store them, there are several free tools on the web and instructions on how to do this, unfortunately i don,t know programmation so i would need help..what do you think about my idea?..when the e-print is made we could add it to an e-print network or something similar...

 

[J77]

There already exist dedicated eprint servers for physics, e.g., http://xxx.lanl.gov/

 

[ZapperZ]

Except he couldn't get any "endorsement" to put up his papers. Since this forum has a clear policy against quackery, why would we admit documents that can't even get a simple endorsement (we're not even talking peer-review here) to go on the ArXiv server?

Zz.

 

[matt grime]

Arxiv also have a 'psuedo' peer review. If people report a submission that does not meet academic standards then it can be removed, say if the paper has known erroneous claims that the author refuses to address. Even if we had such a server here, which would necessarily have such a policy, how long do you think your submissions would last eljose? You have never shown any interest in making any of your posts conform to basic tenets such as clarity, readability, correctness or references to past work of others. Preprint servers like Arxiv survive exactly because they do not allow such things, otherwise they would be no use at all.

 

[Gokul43201]

The IR forum is our e-print server !

 

[matt grime]

That appears to be purely about physics and is moderated, which would make it even stricter that Arxiv, for instance.

 

[eljose]

Except he couldn't get any "endorsement" to put up his papers. Since this forum has a clear policy against quackery, why would we admit documents that can't even get a simple endorsement (we're not even talking peer-review here) to go on the ArXiv server?

Zz.

-First of all..if you don,t know my situation you,d better shut up...

-Goku..i can,t get the link to supposed IR forum

-Matt..do you think this policy is right?..of course you will think "with an endorser or something similar you get the warrant that the works will be correct and accurate" or the most typical heard about the web "If your work is worth publishing you shouldn,t have any problem in finding an endorser"..By the way Matt..do you know how many "Great unifying theories" or "Quantum gravity" version (not to mention the "Spooky" Hidden-variable theories although Von Neumann showed they couldn,t exist) are there at your loving arxiv.org?... i have seen in total more than 20 versions of different theories of this kind there (of course all of them completely false, but made by famous academic teachers... ) if you are not familiar with physics the theories named above if correct should have the same impact as if someone proved "Riemann Hypothesis" or "NP vs P" conjecture, not to mention the "stupid topics" such us "uh..i have discovered the 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000-th root of something".. pathetic...

 

[ZapperZ]

-First of all..if you don,t know my situation you,d better shut up...

What? Are you telling me you have nothing to sell?

-Goku..i can,t get the link to supposed IR forum

Look under the General Physics forum. It is one of the sub-forum under there and it was listed in the PF Guidelines that you have agreed to.

Zz.

 

[matt grime]

Why do you think I'm a fan of the 'loving' Arxiv, whatever that might even mean?

I do not think that just because someone or some institution acts as an endorser that that means the work will be correct, just as publication in a peer review journal does not guarantee it is 'correct'. Correctness is the responsibility of the author, no one else. Nor do I think that everything on arxiv is worthwhile, and I'm sure that there are lots of crackpot things on there. It is hardly difficult to submit to it (possibly in an intellectually fraudulent way) if you are determined to do so. As far as I can remember I think all I had to do was tick a box promising I was an academic somewhere.

If you can prove that any paper on there contains false results why don't you write a rebuttal of them? I'm sure there are lots of those on there too. (Oh, and there is a difference between a theory, and what you claim to have 'proven'.) It is preprint server, it is supposed to contain ideas that might not work out, it is there it disseminate knowledge freely as long as you stick to the 'unwritten' rules of academic discourse (honesty, clarity, no plagiarism, proper references, acknowledgment of the work of others etc).

 

[quantumdude]

The IR forum is our e-print server !

That's what I was about to say. The fact is that we do host papers here that don't necessarily have endorsement for the arXiv.

-Goku..i can,t get the link to supposed IR forum

Errr...Yes, you can get it. In fact you posted there 5 days ago!

We have received your submission to the IR Forum and it is under review. A cursory check reveals that you've complied with the formatting guidelines, now I'm looking for math gurus to check the content.

Any math gurus who are reading this post may consider it an invitation.

 

[quantumdude]

That appears to be purely about physics and is moderated, which would make it even stricter that Arxiv, for instance.

The submission that eljose currently has on the table is physics, so it's eligible for our IR Forum. We may broaden this to include other disciplines in the future, but right now we don't have the manpower for that.

If someone wants to discuss their own mathematical work then our current policy allows them to post it in the main Math section of PF. We Mentors agreed on that because it's a lot harder to define just what makes somene a 'crackpot' in mathematics, a discipline in which one is free to define things as he chooses.

 

[Curious3141]

... it's a lot harder to define just what makes somene a 'crackpot' in mathematics, a discipline in which one is free to define things as he chooses.

That's a nice way of saying that a mathematician is a crackpot until proven otherwise. :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Gokul43201]

That appears to be purely about physics

Eljose has a submission there on zeta regularization that you might want to take a look at.

...and is moderated, which would make it even stricter that Arxiv, for instance.

It is a little stricter than the arXiv, but the standards that a submission are required to meet are way low - in essence (but see the guidelines for the actual requirements) only requiring that a submission be reasonably formatted and not obviously flawed. And any rejection here doesn't happen after the release to the general public, but before.

On the other hand, you don't need an endorsement.

 

[J77]

Furthermore,

i have bad experiences about beign rejected only because i,m not famous

in a student research thread.

That's quite a strange attitude to have.

If you're confident about the quality of your research, and the witing of your papers, you should except peer-reviewed critiscism as a positive thing - even if it rips your paper apart. You should take all the points on board and argue against or incorporate them into your paper.

Thinking a paper is rejected because you're not famous seems to be a good argument as to why there are no completely open (with no review) options for people 'publishing' their work.

 

[matt grime]

In reference to wherever that quote is from, and assuming that you've submitted papers and had them rejected from journals, did you stop to think if you'd satisfied the journal requirements? Here for instance is the LMS's guide to writing mathematicshttp://www.lms.ac.uk/publications/documents/writing.pdf

not to mention the house style guidelines for journals need to be met (correct formatting, reference type, document type, did you follow all the necessary steps?)

If the papers you submitted are anything like the ones you post here then it is no surprise they reject them without even looking at the mathematics.

One thing that you frequently fail to realize is that on this website you have received plenty of attention, and constructive criticism as well as advice as to how to go about doing this stuff properly. We do not think you are a crank or crackpot; you evidently know a fair amount of mathematics and physics, albeit highly specialized. What you dont' seem to understand is what constitutes substantial original work and how to present it.

Here, again is some constructive criticism: it does not suffice to say look, if we can do this then we could do that. Eg, if we could write down a kernel and then evaluate the 'Fourier' coefficients of F(z) then we if we could show this then we can prove that, which is the standard format of your posts. You would actually have to do one of two things for this to be interesting to anyone else

1. demonstrate that the process which allows the translation of a problem into another area is actually valid

say the translation of a problem about topological spaces into one about groups via algebraic topoology

or, if 1. is not possible

2. demonstrate that the translated problem, even if you cannot prove the translation holds, is solvable, or prove something about it.

Both of these things constitute research that would be interesting to someone else. As an example of type 2 stuff, one needs look at random matrix theory. We can draw formal analogies between random matrices and number theory, but they do not hold really. However, it does allow conjectures in one area to be translated into conjectures in another and has led to new results in each area even though you cannot translate the proofs (the analogy tells you what to prove, if you will, not how to prove it).

Fame has nothing to do with whether or not you are published. Famous writers get their articles rejected all the time, just as unknown people get theirs accepted all the time. A piece of advice I got recently from a 'famous' person was that they got about 10% of all their submisssions rejected, and if you (me, in this case) didn't have a similar failure rate then you just weren't aiming at presitgious enough journals.

I seem to remember you saying that you were looking for a career, Jose, so why not put your efforts to good use and start a phd? you'd get paid for what you do in your spare time right now, and you'd have that endorsement you seem to think will make all the difference.

 

[-Job-]

The idea of building an ArXiv that doesn't subject authors to large time delays has crossed my mind and very nearly came to be my Independent Design project. The project itself is fairly simple from a programming/design perspective but i think it would certainly get filled with a lot of questionable science very quickly and gain such a reputation that it would actually be harmful to the authors of the posted articles.

 

[eljose]

-I Have tried getting a Phd in Physics but i never got a response from my University teachers perhaps if i had a recomendation letter from a famouse scientist..perhaps you,are right matt and sometimes i didn,t met the criteria of the journals but i must say that they never found a mistake in my reasonings they gave me excuses such us "the article is not appropiate to be published.." and so on, before submitting i always take a look at if they accept .pdf documents or word document, always use an "abstract", "PACS or MSC" codes (depending if it,s a pure math or physics article) and check the grammar with word processor before submitting.

 

[matt grime]

What do you mean you have 'tried getting a PhD'? Have you formally applied to grad school anywhere? Do you have a degree in an appropriate area? Do you meet the entrance requirements? How many places did you apply to?

You need to stop moaning about not being famous or having endorsements from someone famous. That has nothing to do with anything.

Finally, it is not the purpose of a journal's review to tell you if the content of your submissions is correct. That is your duty. If you cannot honestly claim you believe to the best of your ability that the work you are submitting is correct then you should not submit it. The journal is not there to check if you've got it right. That is for you to do. They are not there for you to submit speculative guess work inorder to have it checked.

Looking at your posts here it is clear that, if they are a reflection of what you sent them, that they are not suitable for publishing in a journal. Three pages saying things like 'if we could work out a Fourier series we might...' is not substantial orginal research. You have been repeatedly offered advice over what you need to do, but you have shown no interest in following it.

 

[eljose]

I have submitted several applications for a Ph. D the problem is always the same.."snobbish" university teachers..only want good qualifications so there,s no way i can get a Ph. D thesis on physics, and i have proposed several physics research such us a "renormalization" process, so we can get finite results in perturbation theory by using the numbers $$\zeta (1-2n)$$ with n an integer

An d the same for this forum..i sent a paper to be published at this forum "original research" but i have got no response...or for example the "proposed" Hilbert-Polya potential..don,t believe it?..then solve it to obtain all the "eigenvalues" to see if they coincide with the calculated roots of the $$\zeta(1/2+is)=0$$

 

[ZapperZ]

This is no longer a "feedback" issue that has any relevance to PF. If you wish to know the status of your submission to the IR forum, please contact the appropriate moderator. This thread is closed.

Zz.