Just noticed this site:
hmmmm.. read the story of carlos castro, as told by carlos castro. Wonder what ginzparg will say in his defense ?
Sorry,guys,didn't have the patience to read it all.Why was this guy banned??For bUll$I-Iit in his articles,or for plagiate??I've seen cases of articles having "plagiated form..." next to their title & autor.
I recognized sevreal of those names, the site talks about Nobel prize winners and maintsream scientists yet it can only come with these names.
I have to agree with dextercioby these people it seems to me have probably been banned for bull****.
Websites that host academic material should have criteria for determining what is acceptable. I would not trust anything from a site that allowed anyone to post anything.
The people that are not allowed to post to a particular site are free to start their own site. They could start www.post_your_cr@p_here.com[/URL] where anyone can post to their hearts content, no restrictions, no guidelines.
Why do they want to be allowed to post to the legitimate sites? Because they want that stamp of legitimacy. Once a legitimate site does away with guidelines, it's no longer legitimate, is it? You can't have both.
I would rather have a site that has information I can trust that might occasionally block a few decent papers, than have a load of garbage, there's no shortage of garbage on the internet.
Considering how lenient the arXives are I have a hard time buying their case. Have you seen some of the stuff they let in? A lot of researchers post their papers there while waiting for review from a published journal so it can be established for posteriety. It seems that these guys may be trying to gain credibility for work that would not make it into a peer reviewed journal.
Exactly, the stuff has to be pretty bad, IMHO.
Well, Castro fell in love with Nottale theories, LaViolette ran into vaccum energy, Josephson supported Storms upload of his cold fusion report, and so on. Of course there is a "sin", from the point of view of ArXiV. But I am afraid this it not the point.
For instance, LaViolette says that Bethe supported his attempt of upload, and I can see the logic of it: even if the theory is wrong, he strongly suggest that any experiment to measure the Pionner effect should try to distinguish between blueshifting of the signal and real acceleration measured with some positioning system.
Given the range of personality types, the speed with which ArXiV has grown, its youth, and the sheer number of active scientists today, wouldn't you be astonished if there were NO cases like this?
Matti's comment ("Very few physicists read published articles anymore and when physicist is not able to get his preprints in arXiv.org, he suffers a death in the professional sense.") was most interesting ... I have a hard time accepting it, seeing as how the journal publishers are still (apparently) doing very good business.
Didn't see any references to the paper journal experiences of authors blacklisted (or otherwise having a tough time) on ArXiV.
If you were in charge of ArXiV, what policies would you devise? How would you implement them?
I would do what PF does and have a "theory development" section. The arxiv now has a sponsor system, this could continue. Only people who publish in the normal section could be sponsors, and you would have to have a sponsor to publish in the oddball section. I think this would do what I would want to see: let Tony Smith in and keep Jack Sarfatti out.
Some of the blacklisted are charging that because of a history of previous controversial/speculative work, their mainstream papers are being rejected. At least one of them has complained that he has received no reason from arXiv why this particular paper was unacceptable - only reasons based on previous work.
Doesn't each submission deserve to be treated upon it's own merit ? If arXiv has a policy which prevents violators from being accepted any time after the transgression, that's okay...but it doesn't seem that that's what the case is.
Separate names with a comma.