May a layman post a scientific manuscript in arXiv?

[art pletcher]

May a layman post a scientific manuscript (regarding cosmology) in "arXiv"? Will it be properly reviewed? Thank you, if you know the answer.

 

[PeterDonis]

See arxiv's submission info here:

http://arxiv.org/help/submit

 

[art pletcher]

Peter, I am already aware of this link. Thx. I wish to know, from anyone with experience, if a layman, unaffiliated with a University, has a reasonable chance of review and assessment. Sorry, for the confusion.

 

[PeterDonis]

I would say the best way to find that out is to contact the people that run arxiv. Note that arxiv itself does not do "review and assessment"; they just host submitted content. Whether what you post there gets any review and assessment depends on who else wants to read it.

 

[Orodruin]

In addition to what Peter said, if you are not a member of a trusted academic institution, you may need endorsement from a person in the field. This is how far the arXiv review process goes. If you want your paper reviewed, you should instead submit it to a scientific journal.

 

[Dale]

Will it be properly reviewed?

No. arXiv does not review articles. That is one reason that sources on arXiv are often not considered valid sources here at PF.

 

[jackmell]

May a layman post a scientific manuscript (regarding cosmology) in "arXiv"?

You need someone that has already published in arXiv to sponsor you.

 

[jtbell]

if you are not a member of a trusted academic institution, you may need endorsement from a person in the field.

See here for their endorsement system:

http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement

 

[StatGuy2000]

No. arXiv does not review articles. That is one reason that sources on arXiv are often not considered valid sources here at PF.

My understanding is the arXiv does not review articles, per se, but functions more as a pre-print service so that those technical reports that are pre-publication can see the light of day. Many researchers in various fields (e.g math, physics, statistics, theoretical computer science, etc.) often post their articles in arXiv in this manner. Would these technical reports not be considered valid sources, if they are intended to be submitted for peer review?

 

[e.bar.goum]

My understanding is the arXiv does not review articles, per se, but functions more as a pre-print service so that those technical reports that are pre-publication can see the light of day. Many researchers in various fields (e.g math, physics, statistics, theoretical computer science, etc.) often post their articles in arXiv in this manner. Would these technical reports not be considered valid sources, if they are intended to be submitted for peer review?

Broadly speaking, whether or not a pre-print is a valid source depends on the field. In most places in physics, it's acceptable to cite an arXiv pre-print until it is published, and then you'd cite the published paper. Obviously, whether or not to cite a particular article depends on whether or not the author thinks the paper is relevant/interesting/correct. Junk on the arXiv or junk in Physical Review Letters is still junk, you know?

ETA: The above isn't about PFs rules, but what you see in professional physics.

 

[Dale]

Would these technical reports not be considered valid sources, if they are intended to be submitted for peer review?

The rules require that topics must "be found in textbooks or that have been published in reputable journals." If an arXiv source is consistent with textbooks or reputable journals then it is fine, but "intended to be submitted for peer review" is not in itself a sufficient qualification for something that is outside the mainstream.

 

[Orodruin]

My understanding is the arXiv does not review articles, per se, but functions more as a pre-print service so that those technical reports that are pre-publication can see the light of day. Many researchers in various fields (e.g math, physics, statistics, theoretical computer science, etc.) often post their articles in arXiv in this manner. Would these technical reports not be considered valid sources, if they are intended to be submitted for peer review?

Adding to what Dale said: A paper being intended for submission to peer review is not the same as being peer reviewed. That is why journals have peer review, to make sure (ehr, well ... try to make sure) that the journal upholds a certain scientific standard. There is of course no guarantee (and there should not be) that a peer reviewed pper will be accepted.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

It may be easier for a layman to get an endorsement in Popular Physics (category) than in Cosmology. Have you sent your paper to some qualified endorsers in Cosmology?

 

[mfb]

Finding an endorser is much easier than writing a cosmology article of any value - especially if the latter has been achieved already.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Also, I don't think it is the job of endorsers to read random manuscripts from people they don't know. It's the job of endorsers to say things like "This paper is from my student, and that's why she hasn't submitted before."

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Also, I don't think it is the job of endorsers to read random manuscripts from people they don't know. It's the job of endorsers to say things like "This paper is from my student, and that's why she hasn't submitted before."

That's certainly one approach laid out in arXiv's description of its endorsement system. But the description certainly offers alternatives for authors entering new fields where they may not be a student. See: http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement

I was well beyond grad school when I posted my first arXiv paper in atomic physics, so I solicited an endorsement from someone I didn't know. I've also published peer-reviewed papers in physics education, medical physics, instrumentation and detectors, and several quantitative biology subfields. The arXiv endorsement process was easy, but required emailing a qualified endorser that I didn't know.

As a qualified endorser for a number of fields, I get one or two emails each year asking for endorsement. In a decade, I think I've only turned down a couple which were clearly crackpot type papers which were not even worth the bandwidth. I probably get five times the number of peer-review requests from journals, funding agencies, etc. as arXiv endorsement requests. I accept almost all of them, because I see it as a scientist's duty to the scientific community to serve in this way.

 

[Orodruin]

Also, I don't think it is the job of endorsers to read random manuscripts from people they don't know. It's the job of endorsers to say things like "This paper is from my student, and that's why she hasn't submitted before."

In many (most?) cases, this will not be necessary as the student will be a member of a trusted institute. I thought I would have to endorse my student when he submitted his first paper, but no. He had no problems.

 

[Vanadium 50]

One thing that surprised me is how few students use their university email addresses - they seem to want to send everything to gmail. This confounds the mechanism for arXiv to know where things come from. For me, while my actual email server is 3rd party, I use my institutional email addresses for institutional stuff.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Institutional email addresses are a pain. They can be inaccessible from remote locations, they make it hard for others to correspond about a paper once you move on, and odds are most scientists will have several during a career. By the time a student is posting to arXiv, s/he is most likely within a year or two of moving to another institution. Why use an email address that will soon be obsolete, sometimes by the time a paper even appears in print?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Like I said - my institutional email is forwarded. Solves that problem. There are also Lab emails - I must have 8. Maybe 9. I think it's really more likely that it's an issue of getting their email on their phones. I solved that problem by buying an app. Cost me maybe a buck.

But we're drifting. Do you think it's the responsbility of endorsers to review works by people unknown to him that do not have greenlighted institutional affilaitions? I don't. I get a few every year, and I send them straight to the trash. Partly because I am an experimeter and these are always theories.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

But we're drifting. Do you think it's the responsbility of endorsers to review works by people unknown to him that do not have greenlighted institutional affilaitions? I don't. I get a few every year, and I send them straight to the trash. Partly because I am an experimeter and these are always theories.

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.

 

[jumpjack]

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?

 

[jtbell]

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.

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:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-faq-and-howto.617567/#post-4664231

 

[micromass]

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?

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.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

ublishing 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.

You are right. On the other hand, as far as I know, Perelman published his proofs on the ArXiv only.

 

[micromass]

You are right. On the other hand, as far as I know, Perelman published his proofs on the ArXiv only.

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 each other. If somebody totally unkown posts on ArXiv, then nobody will care.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

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 each other. If somebody totally unkown posts on ArXiv, then nobody will care.

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.