Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Arxiv trackback

  1. Aug 25, 2005 #1

    garrett

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I've been musing for awhile about using physicsforums as a place to discuss papers that come out on the arxiv. After lurking a bit, it does look like the right place for it. Now a recent development makes this possibility even more interesting: the arxiv now uses trackback, and attaches the trackback links to paper abstracts.

    This raises the possibility that people could open threads here discussing papers, and have links to the threads appear on the arxiv abstract pages.

    Of course, there are political and technical issues. One of the first being, would the arxiv acknowledge trackback pings from physics forums as sufficiently legitimate to accept. And one of the second... is that I haven't made a trackback before so I'm not at all sure how to implement them.

    What do you think?

    -Garrett
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 25, 2005 #2

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Interesting. I wonder what the arxiv crowd thinks of this. I imagine some like the idea while others could probably care less - especially if they are personally acquainted with everyone on earth with enough expertise to make an intelligible remark.

    Indeed, we regularly discuss recent arxiv papers - especially here and in the astronomy forums. And we don't necessarily let our own lack of published credentials get in the way of a conflicting opinion. It certainly would liven things up if the authors started popping in here to comment. A few of them already do.
     
  4. Aug 25, 2005 #3

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Discussions over on Not Even Wrong suggest that this is not all it seems. There apoppears to be some panel that will only admit "approved" links.
     
  5. Aug 25, 2005 #4
    I'd like to get Marcus to take us through a paper or two in much the same way as Hypnogoque has with the book on consciouness in the philosophy section. Even if it meant paraphrasing sections in laymans terms and explaining terms of reference

    Maybe start off with the "Smolin case for BI"

    I'd also like SetAI to do the same with some of the quantum computer stuff of Seth Lloyds

    maybe if a select group picked a paper they feel is important enough to dissect for the average Joe I'm sure me and a lot of others would be most grateful
     
  6. Aug 25, 2005 #5

    garrett

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, it's not at all clear how restrictive the arxiv semi-moderators intend to be. I propose we try tackling the techinical issue of making a trackback first, and then pick an arxiv paper to discuss and try to make a trackback to that work. I am inexperienced in this, but am foolhardy enough to give it a go.

    Peter Woit's journal is where I saw this announced first. And I hope he doesn't think it overshadowed the announcement of his book, which is also an interesting development. But, in an effort to get trackback working from Physics Forums, I'll go ahead and try sending a trackback ping to Peter's page by using this:

    Wizbang Standalone Trackback Pinger

    And putting things in by hand... There, now to go see if that works.
     
  7. Aug 25, 2005 #6

    garrett

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It does not appear to have worked. Anyone else care to try and figure it out? Or determine it's not possible to send a manual trackback from this Physics Forums thread URL?
     
  8. Aug 25, 2005 #7

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Hi garrett,
    fraid I've nothing useful to say. Just want to express interest. Trackback among physics blogs, with arxiv in the picture, seems like a really good idea. I hope to be able to observe it in use over the coming weeks and months, to see how it actually plays out. Not sure how it will be. Can't be, with a new thing. Hope you figure out the current difficulty you are experiencing
     
  9. Aug 26, 2005 #8

    garrett

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ahh, tricky, but I found the mistake I was making. In doing the trackback ping manually, I didn't see that the trackback link off of the thread on Peter's blog was to a page that immediately redirected to a slightly different url. By using the right link it appears to have worked, as you can tell by the trackback added to the bottom of Peter's thread. I used haloscan to make this one, but I suspect the Wizbang Pinger would have worked as well with the correct link.

    Hmm, now it only remains to pick a paper on the arxiv to be discussed and see if they accept the trackback.

    Any suggestions?
     
  10. Aug 26, 2005 #9

    garrett

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This really is a pivotal moment in the history of physics, or at least in the history of physics publishing. As all working physicists know, the arxiv has become the medium of choice for distributing physics papers to the research community. It is, though, lacking peer review, other than minimal automatic restrictions and some controversial blacklisting. I think it was Paul Ginsparg's original vision to include some form of collaborative filtering to replace the peer review process. And it now appears the arxiv is trying out trackbacks to fulfill this roll.

    It still remains to be seen how open the arxiv is to trackbacks from various sources. If, for example, they accept a manual trackback from Physics Forums, that would mean PF members could open threads and link to them from the arxiv article abstracts themselves. This would be great! We must try this.

    Since I have been harassing Peter Woit here already, we might as well try a trackback to his manifesto:

    Quantum Field Theory and Representation Theory: A Sketch
    And open a discussion on it. It really is an interesting paper. As far as I can tell, though I am much more a physicist than mathematician, the main meta idea from the paper is that we should be paying more attention to theories involving the space of connections. This is certainly an idea I can support. In the paper, it seems what he's after is to derive the path integral and action from geometric arguments using representation theory. Sadly though, I wasn't able to follow all the details. It would be great if someone could help clarify what he did here.

    But, even if not, this will serve as a test of whether the arxiv accepts manual trackbacks from PF... and potentially open the possibility of using almost any discussion forum to discuss, and have links from, papers on the arxiv.
     
  11. Mar 3, 2006 #10

    garrett

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    An unofficial disclosure on this issue just appeared in the Cosmic Variance comments:

    http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/03/03/crackpots-contrarians-and-the-free-market-of-ideas/#comments

    Apparently the arxiv policy is to:
    "allow trackbacks only to blogs run by active researchers."

    Remarkably, this seems to exclude Peter Woit, regardless of how much I liked his last arxiv paper. It also excludes trackback links from PF.

    So, sadly, I imagine what's going on is more like a bunch of guys sitting around deciding which people are cool enough to come to their party.
     
  12. Mar 3, 2006 #11

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Maybe Peter's kind of critical evaluation should be called "passive" research:smile:
    not clear how they tell what's active research and what's not

    seriously, people who don't recognize the role of critic, dissident, whistleblower are missing some essential cogs
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2006
  13. Mar 4, 2006 #12

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I like this concept.

    I wonder even if a "Journal of Passive Reseach" could be founded. And passively peer reviewed.
     
  14. Mar 4, 2006 #13

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    does this mean that only passive peers would be allowed to review the submitted articles?
    I think it might be more generous to allow active researchers also to review the articles, but then to passively ignore what they say.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2006
  15. Mar 4, 2006 #14

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I think it's active researchers (in the restricted sense of properly employed active researchers) that are allowed, and passive researchers, such as Woit, who are rejected.
     
  16. Mar 4, 2006 #15

    garrett

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    He teaches math at Columbia, occasionally posts research articles, and has a PhD in physics from Princeton. What does it take? If anything, Woit is an anti-crank.

    I just can't believe this censorship is the result of a fair system. My guess is it's the entrenched arxiv physics board members protecting their position through nefarious means, because they're in a position to get away with it, for now. The surprise to me is that they got this past Paul Ginsparg.
     
  17. Mar 5, 2006 #16

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    He's not employed in the math department at Columbia, but in the administrative department. From a certain angle he looks like someone who has left research to do other work, and occasionally produces a paper, not a deep research one, as a hobby. This isn't my view of him but my conjectural Distleroid view. Jack Sarfatti has a Ph.D. in physics too.
     
  18. Mar 5, 2006 #17

    garrett

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I should preface this post by saying my own situation is probably too close to Peter Woit's for mine to be anywhere near an objective view.

    I recently turned down a tenure track physics position because it would have taken too much time from my research. After a few years I probably could have obtained some grant funding and carved out time to do research, but these are important years, and I am impatient. Strangely enough, if you want to have large swaths of uninterrupted time to do theoretical research, the best way to do it is avoid traditional academia and get paid, computer related work that takes very little time. If you love teaching you can lecture a class or two, which also gives access to a university library and services. This, apparently, is what Peter Woit has done, and it's what I do. It's an odd path, but the time overhead in pursuing or holding an academic position leaves very little time left for research -- I don't know how so many people do it without performing their academic duties poorly. Me, I made the choice of turning away from a respectable academic physics post in order to do physics.

    In my opinion, holding a PhD from a reputable university should be sufficient certification for taking part in the scientific community. As you point out, there will be people such as Saffarti who manage to get that certification while still being waaaaay out there. I think the community is well equipped to handle that -- a process you can see in this recent arxiv paper which came out in response to Saffarti's:
    http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602111

    What is bad for the community is when qualified and competent voices are silenced -- because they might not be wrong.
     
  19. Mar 5, 2006 #18
    selfAdjoint,

    Sorry, but I am employed by the math department at Columbia, not by an administrative department at Columbia. I've explained this repeatedly elsewhere, but here's the exact situation:

    I am a full-time faculty member at Columbia with the title of "Lecturer in Discipline". This is a permanent, off-tenure track faculty of Arts and Sciences position, which includes responsibility for teaching one course each semester (in recent years I have taught graduate courses in representation theory, differential geometry, and quantum field theory), administering the department computer system, and conducting research in my specialty.

    No, research is not my hobby, and I happen to think the research paper Garrett is referring to is a rather deep one.
     
  20. Mar 5, 2006 #19

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I am deeplly sorry for the error.
     
  21. Mar 5, 2006 #20
    Thanks, selfAdjoint, for the gracious apology.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Arxiv trackback
  1. Arivero paper on arxiv (Replies: 14)

  2. New Arxiv stats (Replies: 4)

Loading...