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

May a layman post a scientific manuscript in arXiv?

  1. Jul 5, 2015 #21

    Dr. Courtney

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2018 Award

    The system depends on some endorsers being willing to review works by people unknown to them. Otherwise, it's nothing but an old boys' network where one cannot get an endorsement for a new field unless you know someone who is an endorser in that field. I've needed that done for me, and I've done it for others.

    And an endorsement review is not near as involved as a real peer review. When I do a real peer review, I spend many hours on the paper, reading it very carefully, reading the references, considering alternate approaches, making sure the discussion and conclusions are well supported by the results, etc. For an endorsement, I spend an hour or two. I read the paper and if it's not complete garbage, I grant the endorsement.
  2. Jan 8, 2016 #22
    Does it exist in this forum an "arXiv endorsers" section? Where unaffiliated people could post previews of their jobs and get rated by scientist who read the forum.
    People getting interest and attention could deserve an endorsement on arXiv.

    Example: I am not a seismologist, but 7 years ago I performed some calculations to debunk/confirm a theory about L'Aquila earthquake strength, declared by media as stronger than previous earthquakes, although this was rated 5.8 and the others 6.4-6.9.
    <<link deleted to conform with PF policy about unpublished research>>

    I think it would have been interesting to publish a short paper on this topic, just to explain the job performed, but didn't know where to start from.

    Today I finished a totally different study, about Atmospheric Physics.
    <<link deleted to conform with PF policy about unpublished research>>

    I'm not affiliated to any institution, I'm just an engineer loving calculations and physics :-)

    How could I publish my works in places more interesting than a blog, so they can be visited and evaluated by real scientists?
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2016
  3. Jan 8, 2016 #23


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No. As per our Global Guidelines which can be found in the INFO menu at the top right of any page here, under "Terms and Rules", we do not discuss research that has not already appeared in professional circles, generally via publication in a peer-reviewed journal, although there can be exceptions for arXiv. Nor do we provide pre-publication review. For further explanation of our history in this area, see here:

  4. Jan 8, 2016 #24
    Publishing on ArXiv really isn't an accomplishment. It's a PRE-print server. What you need to do is to publish in an actual journal, not ArXiv. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you only posted on ArXiv.
  5. Jan 8, 2016 #25


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You are right. On the other hand, as far as I know, Perelman published his proofs on the ArXiv only.
  6. Jan 8, 2016 #26
    Yeah, but the difference is that if people who are already "known" in the field post something on ArXiv, then it will be read. That is the entire point of ArXiv, so "known" professors can communicate easier with eachother. If somebody totally unkown posts on ArXiv, then nobody will care.
  7. Jan 26, 2016 #27

    Dr. Courtney

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2018 Award

    It is valuable to distinguish the original intent of xxx.lanl.gov from what arXiv has evolved into 25 years later. Communication among "known" professors may have been the entire point of xxx.lanl.gov when it was founded in 1991, but in 2016, arXiv is about much more.

    For example, now there are three "overlay journals" that require posting to arXiv prior to submitting to their peer review process. This Nature news story describes the most recent effort ( http://www.nature.com/news/leading-mathematician-launches-arxiv-overlay-journal-1.18351 ) which is called Discrete Analysis and seems to have a fields medalist (Timothy Gowers) as a leading proponent. Most of the details are described here: https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an-arxiv-overlay-journal/

    The utility of arXiv's goal and mission are much broader than Ginsparg's original intent. The goal and mission are

    arXiv is an openly accessible, moderated repository for scholarly articles in specific scientific disciplines. Material submitted to arXiv is expected to be of interest, relevance, and value to those disciplines. arXiv reserves the right to reject or reclassify any submission. Submissions are reviewed by expert moderators to verify that they are topical and refereeable scientific contributions that follow accepted standards of scholarly communication (as exemplified by conventional journal articles).

    Rapid dissemination of scholarly referreeable scientific contributions can potentially serve many goals. In addition to providing access to contributions of "known" professors and a venue for overlay journals, arXiv allows authors to establish priority for an idea or experiment, it allows works to be more easily found in a newly emerging field without established journals read by everyone in the field, and it allows new contributions by "unknown" authors to be found, cited, and the methods they contain to be implemented by others before they appear in a reviewed journal.

    When blast TBI became a big deal following the invasion of Afghanistan, we worked hard to invent devices for inexpensive, accurate, and repeatable simulation of blast waves for laboratory experiments. We published three papers in Review of Scientific Instruments, but since these devices are used by scientists in many fields, most researchers found our papers in arXiv instead. We certainly weren't known in the field before the papers appeared on arXiv, but posting the e-prints allowed collaborations to proceed with colleagues at various institutions before the papers even appeared in print.

    I think a case can also be made that arXiv provides a useful venue for papers that never appear in reviewed journals. Consider our paper, "Sheep Collisions: The Good, the Bad, and the TBI." This paper corrects an errant analysis in Halliday, Resnick, and Walker and lays out a more accurate framework for understanding sheep collisions. Jearl Walker has taken note of the paper on his Flying Circus of Physics web site, and the paper has often been referenced in educational blogs and classroom use. It has also been cited in a few Australian government reports and in the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. I think the paper was even discussed favorably here on Physics Forums.

    We were completely unknown in the TBI world when this paper was posted to arXiv. We were too busy working on a more important paper (A Thoracic Mechanism of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Due to Blast Pressure Waves, http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4757 ) to bother shepherding the sheep paper through the peer review process. The "thoracic mechanism" paper did not appear in a peer-reviewed journal either, but it's been cited 100 times.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2016
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook