This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

Share this

Free weekly newswire

Sign up to receive all our latest news direct to your inbox.

Physics on film

100 Second Science Your scientific questions answered simply by specialists in less than 100 seconds.

Watch now

Bright Recruits

At all stages of your career – whether you're an undergraduate, graduate, researcher or industry professional – can help find the job for you.

Find your perfect job

Physics connect

Are you looking for a supplier? Physics Connect lists thousands of scientific companies, businesses, non-profit organizations, institutions and experts worldwide.

Start your search today



The new arXiv?

By Hamish Johnston

Is the love affair with the arXiv preprint server on the wane?

In case you have never heard of it, the arXiv is a vast online repository of physics papers, most of which are uploaded before they have passed muster by peer review. It is seen by many as a shining example of how the Internet can be used to accelerate the dissemination of knowlege — and some see it as a key step in the evolution away from the traditional journal publishing model.

But not everyone is a fan of the Cornell University-based service.

Maverick blogger Tommaso Dorigo is leading a campaign to expose the alleged “blacklisting” of certain researchers, who claim that their papers are not being uploaded to the server — or being relegated to “graveyard” categories.

Oxford University’s Marni Sheppeard — who believes she may be on such a blacklist — has posted a link to an alternative to arXiv called

viXra has just been launched by Phil Gibbs (who I think is an independent physicist) and contains one paper — an essay entitled This Time – What a Strange Turn of Events! by Phil Gibbs.

Elsewhere in the blogosphere, David Bacon calls for more transparency in the arXiv’s editorial policies.

So, are Tommaso, Marni, Phil and David just a few dissenting voices in an otherwise happy physics community, or is the love affair with arXiv waning?

I’m sure this is a completely unrelated incident — but Bacon also asks has the arXiv been hacked?.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile


  1. The arxiv moderators once retaliated for my arguing with them about their refusal to post the excellent review of cold fusion research by Ed Storms (which the chemists’ equivalent did accept) by barring me from uploading any papers at all. But then, recognising that it would not look good to bar a Nobel Laureate from the archive, they let me upload a paper (physics/0312012), but disallowed cross posting to areas which might very well have had interested readers. The behaviour of the archive is unequivocably a disgrace, and anyone who wants to know more should look at the web site (of which I was co-founder) devoted to documenting the archive’s behaviour,

  2. Count Iblis

    The blacklisted people happen to be people who are active on the blogosphere and who are not the best of friends of Lubos Motl. Is it a coincidence that Peter Woit’s trackbacks are not posted either?
    Is it also just a coincidence that reading the math section of arxiv you regularly encounter crackpot papers about proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis, elementary proof of Fermat’s last theorem etc. etc., and that the authors of these papers who, as can be verified by clicking on their names, publish nothing more than similar crackpot papers, are allowed to continue posting on the arXiv?

  3. Jimbo

    Like any bureacracy left unchecked for a decade, the arxiv has grown monstrously, both in arxived paper count, policies, policing, and perception.
    Relatively free & unfettered by regulations in their humble beginnings at Los Alamos, they have now appointed themselves as god-like referees, imposing paper categorizations, endorsements, cross-listing permissions and acceptance/rejectance criteria in a totalitarian manner.
    They believe they are compelled to do this in order to filter out crackpots and redundant articles, as they attempt to stem the tsunami of submissions which shows no sign of leveling off.
    Their success has now become their undoing, and vixra, their antithesis, will hopefully part the internet waters, so that choice is once again available to the scientific community.
    I suspect that vixra’s success will be assured if they learn from arxiv’s mistakes, and maintain a free-flowing forum for airing scientific ideas by not imposing draconian constraints on author’s submissions, and I wish them the best.

  4. The problems with the arxiv cannot be blamed entirely on its administrators, although it would be good to see them accepting some responsibility for the joke that they have created. The deafening silence of the professional community at large demonstrates that the arxiv is but one symptom of a serious problem in the way that physical science is presently being conducted. One hears all sorts of excuses, sounding reasonable in newspeak, but not in the English I know.

  5. In my view, much of the hubris might be avoided if the moderators revealed their agenda, and demonstrated courage in their convictions by simply giving reasons for their rejection of submissions. They admit that “only a few” are turned down, so it won’t be an onerous undertaking. The travesty is that their blacklisting actually creates “outsiders” from the ranks of genuine researchers.
    In effect, their modus operandi is ideological censorship, and they should be honest about it. Am I being hopelessly naive?

  6. Richard Wayte PhD

    As a freelance physicist, I have been unable to find an endorser for Brian Josephson has explained what is going on. have kindly preserved my priority, while I find a mainstream publisher.


  • Comments should be relevant to the article and not be used to promote your own work, products or services.
  • Please keep your comments brief (we recommend a maximum of 250 words).
  • We reserve the right to remove excessively long, inappropriate or offensive entries.

Show/hide formatting guidelines

Tag Description Example Output
<a> Hyperlink <a href="">google</a> google
<abbr> Abbreviation <abbr title="World Health Organisation" >WHO</abbr> WHO
<acronym> Acronym <acronym title="as soon as possible">ASAP</acronym> ASAP
<b> Bold <b>Some text</b> Some text
<blockquote> Quoted from another source <blockquote cite="">IOP</blockquote>
<cite> Cite <cite>Diagram 1</cite> Diagram 1
<del> Deleted text From this line<del datetime="2012-12-17"> this text was deleted</del> From this line this text was deleted
<em> Emphasized text In this line<em> this text was emphasised</em> In this line this text was emphasised
<i> Italic <i>Some text</i> Some text
<q> Quotation WWF goal is to build a future <q cite="">
where people live in harmony with nature and animals</q>
WWF goal is to build a future
where people live in harmony with nature and animals
<strike> Strike text <strike>Some text</strike> Some text
<strong> Stronger emphasis of text <strong>Some text</strong> Some text