ArXiv crackpot filter developed by accident

[Hornbein]

I don't think this has ever happened.

Galois couldn't get his paper accepted because it was written so badly. "The ink was almost white," the reviewer said.

Grassman couldn't get linear algebra accepted because of the rough presentation. He self-published.

 

[JorisL]

Galois couldn't get his paper accepted because it was written so badly. "The ink was almost white," the reviewer said.

Well then he should have put more time into writing his paper. Its like complaining that your paper isn't accepted because it has a spelling error every other line.

Grassman couldn't get linear algebra accepted because of the rough presentation. He self-published.

What do you mean with rough presentation, ambiguous? Or perhaps too fast (using the trivial-argument)?In both cases I'd say that it doesn't matter how good your research is if the reader has to go to extraordinary lengths to comprehend it.
Be it using a magnifying glass to read it or figure out new techniques with only a statement of the problem and the result.

 

[Hornbein]

What do you mean with rough presentation, ambiguous? Or perhaps too fast (using the trivial-argument)?

He was self-taught and used strange terminology, I think. In at least one case the referee was enthusiastic about the contents, but thought the presentation was too poor. It didn't help that his ideas were so original.

 

[JorisL]

He was self-taught and used strange terminology, I think. In at least one case the referee was enthusiastic about the contents, but thought the presentation was too poor.

Isn't that normal? How can you understand something if the terminology isn't standard, adding an extra layer of difficulty.
Ideally the referee would help him contact someone that's willing to help but this requires even a basic understanding of what's actually done.

 

[Hornbein]

Isn't that normal? How can you understand something if the terminology isn't standard, adding an extra layer of difficulty.
Ideally the referee would help him contact someone that's willing to help but this requires even a basic understanding of what's actually done.

The question under discussion is whether we might "miss a grand idea just because the presentation or presenter is rough around the edges." The question is not whether poor presentations are difficult to understand.

 

[Dale]

However, this does seem to justify my reemphasis of the point that there is no rigorous definition of whether a paper is crackpottery or not.

The point is that it isn't necessary to have a separate definition, just a measurement that you define as crackpottery.

The arXiv filter itself can be considered a measurement and crackpottery can be defined as a particular score or range of scores on that measurement. You could even take some reference standard crackpots and calibrate other similar measurements. All without ever providing a non empirical definition.

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

I suppose that's a valid point.

 

[Dale]

Galois couldn't get his paper accepted because it was written so badly. "The ink was almost white," the reviewer said.

Grassman couldn't get linear algebra accepted because of the rough presentation. He self-published.

And we have not missed their ideas, we have them and use them.

I think that Galois' case is pretty much a worst case example, the dissemination was delayed by about 10 years due to the poor presentation.

 

[Vanadium 50]

, the dissemination was delayed by about 10 years due to the poor presentation.

And the fact that Galois was unable to revise anything in those 10 years, being rather inconveniently dead.

 

[Dale]

And the fact that Galois was unable to revise anything in those 10 years, being rather inconveniently dead.

Yes, pretty much a worst case indeed.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

And so your grand idea was not lost.

Ah, but only because we were able to chart a course to publication that cleverly avoided the peer review that would have risked biased reviewers labeling our hypothesis as "crakpottery."

It is notable that the journal we published the paper in is now peer-reviewed and, in fact, rejected a later paper we submitted. We eventually got it published in a lower tier journal, but the key idea of that one has been under-appreciated, and is in danger of being lost. The key idea (hypothesis) in the later paper is that the cranium exhibits hysteresis with regard to blast wave transmission - previous exposures to blast waves increase the blast wave transmitted in subsequent exposures. Unlike the first paper, no one has bothered to do the necessary experiments to further test the hypothesis, even though the idea is fairly simple.

 

[Hornbein]

The hypothesis that "the good ideas always come through eventually" is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. If a good idea never came through, then we would not know about it. There simply is no way to collect any evidence one way or the other.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

The hypothesis that "the good ideas always come through eventually" is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. If a good idea never came through, then we would not know about it. There simply is no way to collect any evidence one way or the other.

This is a great point.

Further, the idea that "the good ideas always come through eventually" neglects both the benefits to others from the great ideas coming through in a timely manner. How many lives did Pasteur save with the rabies vaccine? Jenner with the smallpox vaccine?

Finally, the idea that "the good ideas always come through eventually" also neglects the fundamental injustice in failing to recognize the scientist(s) who were truly first with the idea. Posting to arXiv establishes priority, even if the idea seems like crack pottery. I hope arXiv is keeping records of all their rejections, so any ideas that turn out to be true and important can be duly noted.

 

[strangerep]

I hope arXiv is keeping records of all their rejections, [...]

Heh, isn't that what viXra is for?

 

[mfb]

The hypothesis that "the good ideas always come through eventually" is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. If a good idea never came through, then we would not know about it. There simply is no way to collect any evidence one way or the other.

It is possible to study cases in the past: if something was rejected initially, but accepted later (=> that allows to collect the sample), how long did it need? Can we fit some spectrum to it and extrapolate to "very long times"?
It is also possible to study who suggested it earlier. And, not surprisingly, none of them were crackpots.

I think it is no accident that breakthroughs often come from the young or weirdos

Do you have a reference for that? Also keep in mind that most researchers are young - because most PhD students don't get a permanent position.

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

Most of QM was developed by young "weirdos". That's easy to look up. It was even nick named young science or something along those lines due to most of the people being in their early 20s.

 

[Dale]

Ah, but only because we were able to chart a course to publication that cleverly avoided the peer review that would have risked biased reviewers labeling our hypothesis as "crakpottery."

First, you didn't go that route, so you don't know what would have happened if you had. It very well could have been accepted, or it could have been rejected in the first tier journal and accepted in a second tier journal as is fairly common. You don't know and can't know. If you are going to assert knowledge of hypothetical scenarios then I would assert that someone else would have figured out the same idea.

Second, the point remains that the idea itself was not lost. This is the supposed risk, which I don't believe, that good ideas will be lost because of who or how the idea is presented. There are IMO, just too many redundancies: outsiders can polish their presentation and get it published in peer reviewed journals, they can publish in non standard channels, or other people can develop the same idea and present it better.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

First, you didn't go that route, so you don't know what would have happened if you had. It very well could have been accepted, or it could have been rejected in the first tier journal and accepted in a second tier journal as is fairly common. You don't know and can't know. If you are going to assert knowledge of hypothetical scenarios then I would assert that someone else would have figured out the same idea.

We've submitted enough papers related to blast injury to peer reviewed journals to be well familiar with the biases inherent against newcomers in the field. LIke many fields in science, there is an established "in" crowd, and if you are not part of it, your submissions are more likely than not to be stalled in the process.

Quick publication of the paper was key in being widely cited: the field was hot, DoD was pouring a lot of money into research, and it turned out to be very useful to have all the dominant mechanistic hypotheses summarized in print in a timely manner. That paper set a speed record for submission to acceptance to publication:

7/28/2008 Approved for public release by Department of Defense
7/31/2008 Submitted to Medical Hypotheses
8/1/2008 Submission Acknowledged
8/3/2008 Accepted for Publication
9/12/2008 Published online

In contrast, we average about 18 months delay from initial submission to publication of papers that are rejected by the first journal. One recent paper we published in blast injury took 12 months from submission to acceptance, even though it was an invited paper accepted by the first journal we submitted to. A 12-18 month delay would have resulted in a significant delay while research went forward and many millions of DoD dollars were spent by scientists without the benefit of considering our new hypothesis.

arXiv may not offer the benefits of peer-review or filtering out of crackpottery, but it does offer the benefit of rapid dissemination. Discerning readers are capable of filtering out the nonsense themselves. When fields are hot and there is need for rapid progress, it helps to have ideas and new results available to a wide audience quickly.

 

[Dale]

the field was hot

Making it even more likely that someone else would come up with the same idea even if you hadn't been able to get the word out.