Arxiv Endorsement for Gr-qc Group: Requesting Support for Publishing

[White_Wolf]

I need endorsement in order to publish on arxiv but endorsers there do not answer e-mails. The group is gr-qc.

 

[Hornbein]

I need endorsement in order to publish on arxiv but endorsers there do not answer e-mails. The group is gr-qc.

I wouldn't endorse a stranger. I wouldn't even agree to read their paper. Not that my endorsement would matter...

 

[White_Wolf]

I wouldn't endorse a stranger. I wouldn't even agree to read their paper. Not that my endorsement would matter...

Why does it matter if it's a stranger? Only the work should matter.

 

[Hornbein]

QUOTE="Hornbein, post: 5355949, member: 489043"]I wouldn't endorse a stranger. I wouldn't even agree to read their paper. Not that my endorsement would matter...

Why does it matter if it's a stranger? Only the work should matter.

Welcome to real life.

 

[Choppy]

If the work matters it should be in a peer-reviewed journal.

Arxiv is a preprint server. It allows others in the community who follow your work to read what you're currently working on before it gets through the peer-review process. If no one is currently following your work, there really doesn't seem to be much point in putting it up on arxiv. (At least that's my point of view - putting work on arxiv isn't as popular in my field as it is in others.)

 

[White_Wolf]

If the work matters it should be in a peer-reviewed journal.

Arxiv is a preprint server. It allows others in the community who follow your work to read what you're currently working on before it gets through the peer-review process. If no one is currently following your work, there really doesn't seem to be much point in putting it up on arxiv. (At least that's my point of view - putting work on arxiv isn't as popular in my field as it is in others.)

Well it matters since some journals ask that the paper is pre-printed on arxiv.

 

[f95toli]

Well it matters since some journals ask that the paper is pre-printed on arxiv.

Which journals? There are journals that won't allow you to post the manuscript on the arXiv until it has appeared in print (e.g. Nature); but I've never come across a journal that stated that something HAD to be posted on the arXiv, I did read about a new open-access journal that will actively use the arXiv but I don't think that is up and running yet.

 

[DrClaude]

but I've never come across a journal that stated that something HAD to be posted on the arXiv

Me neither, but there are some journals that allow you to submit directly from the arXiv, instead of uploading the file to the journal's website, but that is only an option.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is what it says under "What are my responsibilities as an endorser?"

A typical endorser would be asked to endorse about one person a year. The endorsement process is not peer review. You should know the person that you endorse or you should see the paper that the person intends to submit. We don't expect you to read the paper in detail, or verify that the work is correct, but you should check that the paper is appropriate for the subject area. You should not endorse the author if the author is unfamiliar with the basic facts of the field, or if the work is entirely disconnected with current work in the area.

The bar is low. If people are still refusing to endorse, that tells you something. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there it is.

 

[atyy]

Which journals? There are journals that won't allow you to post the manuscript on the arXiv until it has appeared in print (e.g. Nature); but I've never come across a journal that stated that something HAD to be posted on the arXiv, I did read about a new open-access journal that will actively use the arXiv but I don't think that is up and running yet.

That is not true. Nature does allow you to post it on the arXiv before it has appeared in print.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7031/full/434257b.html
"So please let's put a myth about this journal to rest. As first stated in an editorial in 1997, and since then in our Guide to Authors, if scientists wish to display drafts of their research papers on an established preprint server before or during submission to Nature or any Nature journal, that's fine by us."

 

[f95toli]

That is not true. Nature does allow you to post it on the arXiv before it has appeared in print.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7031/full/434257b.html
"So please let's put a myth about this journal to rest. As first stated in an editorial in 1997, and since then in our Guide to Authors, if scientists wish to display drafts of their research papers on an established preprint server before or during submission to Nature or any Nature journal, that's fine by us."

I am not actually sure this is entirely correct (yes, I know that quote comes directly from Nature). I guess it depends a bit on the article. Where I work we generally avoid putting anything on the arXiv if we are submitting to a Nature journal or Science. This is in large part because of previous experiences where Nature won't allow you to e.g. send out a press release about your research (once the paper has been accepted) until they say that it is OK. I am not sure how would work if the manuscript was already freely available(?).
A friend of mine had "high profile" paper in Nature (the main journal) which made the front page (a nice photo) a couple of years ago and there was a lot of e-mails being sent back and forth to them before we were allowed to put anything up on our website.
Hence, while I am sure it would probably be OK, we'd rather not take the risk.

 

[mfb]

Why does it matter if it's a stranger? Only the work should matter.

You don't want to endorse things that have a low quality - if you know the author from previous work this is often not an issue, but how do you tell if the work from a stranger has some reasonable quality? You have to read it, which takes time. The average quality of work from authors who do not know anyone working in the relevant field is very low.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well it matters since some journals ask that the paper is pre-printed on arxiv.

This is absolutely false. In fact, many journals PREFER that you do not upload it to arxiv prior to publication! Some even prohibit such uploads.

There is something fishy about all this.

Zz.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I tend to post papers on arXiv unless planning to submit to a journal that prohibits it.

I've had a number of papers cited before or about the same time they appear in print because of the arXiv post.

In addition, some of my papers have gotten positive blog and press coverage because they are posted to arXiv that they may not have gotten by the print version alone.

arXiv is also a nice place to put lengthy background material in detail that may not be suitable for a print journal or that is outside their scope even though others in the field will want to be able to find it somewhere.

There have also been occasions where we've written up a paper in response to an error in a paper or textbook. In some cases, the journal that published the original paper will not publish the comment, and there really isn't a good venue to point out errors in textbooks. But posting to arXiv provides public notice of the error in the archival literature.

arXiv is also nice because it allows me to link quickly to almost any of my publications. It is simply the quickest way to answer most requests for copies of papers.

If you can't get an endorsement to your preferred subject area, endorsements for popular physics are pretty easy to come by if you really want to establish priority or get something out there.

 

[White_Wolf]

QUOTE="f95toli, post: 5356326, member: 87679"]Which journals? There are journals that won't allow you to post the manuscript on the arXiv until it has appeared in print (e.g. Nature); but I've never come across a journal that stated that something HAD to be posted on the arXiv, I did read about a new open-access journal that will actively use the arXiv but I don't think that is up and running yet.[/QUOTE]
I remmember seeing a few journals.

 

[White_Wolf]

This is what it says under "What are my responsibilities as an endorser?"

It tells me they are lazy since they didn't refuse to endorse as you've said (and I didn't) they just ignored.

They, and many of you are quazi-intelectuals.The bar is low. If people are still refusing to endorse, that tells you something. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there it is.
G

 

[White_Wolf]

You don't want to endorse things that have a low quality - if you know the author from previous work this is often not an issue, but how do you tell if the work from a stranger has some reasonable quality? You have to read it, which takes time. The average quality of work from authors who do not know anyone working in the relevant field is very low.

you can look at the paper and use your brain to conclude without needing to have a freaking relationship with the author.

 

[White_Wolf]

This is absolutely false. In fact, many journals PREFER that you do not upload it to arxiv prior to publication! Some even prohibit such uploads.

There is something fishy about all this.

Zz.

There is something fishy in people calling them selves scientists and yet not knowing a thing about science. Buying their diploma and then runing around twiter and tv being all p.c. while their manuscripts have 5 to 7 pages and 50 to 70 references, nothing new, no inovative thinking, just repeating the same over and over.

 

[ZapperZ]

There is something fishy in people calling them selves scientists and yet not knowing a thing about science. Buying their diploma and then runing around twiter and tv being all p.c. while their manuscripts have 5 to 7 pages and 50 to 70 references, nothing new, no inovative thinking, just repeating the same over and over.

This, by itself, shows your own ignorance about scientific papers and what scientists do, and inditectly reflects on the quality of your "work".

Zz.

 

[mfb]

you can look at the paper and use your brain to conclude without needing to have a freaking relationship with the author.

You can look at the paper, but this takes time. If the probability of getting a good manuscript is negligible, why would you want to invest the time?

This, by itself, shows your own ignorance about scientific papers and what scientists do, and inditectly reflects on the quality of your "work".

Exactly.

 

[Drakkith]

Thread locked.