Discussion Overview
The discussion centers around the quality and credibility of viXra.org, a repository for scientific papers. Participants explore various perspectives on the platform's reputation, the implications of publishing there, and the broader context of academic publishing, particularly for those without formal affiliations or credentials.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Exploratory
- Technical explanation
Main Points Raised
- Some participants express skepticism about viXra.org, suggesting it is a platform for those unable to publish in more reputable venues like arXiv.
- One participant cites physicist Gerard 't Hooft's comment that papers published in viXra are unlikely to contain acceptable results, indicating a general perception of low quality.
- Concerns are raised about the lack of author credentials and institutional affiliations in viXra submissions, which some view as a reason to avoid the site.
- Others argue that there may be valid contributions from individuals without formal affiliations, particularly in fields where industry professionals may engage in research.
- A participant humorously suggests that viXra can be entertaining, referencing a paper that humorously reevaluates the center of mass of the solar system as being centered on Earth.
- There is a discussion about the endorsement process for arXiv submissions, with some questioning its meritocratic nature and others defending it as a means to maintain technical standards.
- One participant notes that the conversation has drifted from the original question about viXra's quality, indicating a potential lack of focus in the discussion.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants generally agree on the poor quality of content on viXra, but there are competing views regarding the implications of publishing there and the validity of contributions from those without formal academic credentials. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the overall value of viXra as a publication platform.
Contextual Notes
Participants highlight limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of quality and credibility in academic publishing, as well as the varying standards across different platforms. There is also mention of the need for further exploration of policies related to arXiv submissions from non-affiliated researchers.