How the ArXiv Decides What’s Science
backreaction.blogspot.com
How the ArXiv Decides What’s Science
1–10 of 27 posts
Re: How the ArXiv Decides What’s Science
#2The basic heuristic I use for determining what 'counts' as science relies on 3 questions
1) Are there methods or is there a description of how to observe something?
2) Are old methods being applied to a new phenomenon.
3) Are new methods being applied to an old phenomenon.
It isn't possible to do science if you don't have a viable tool (method) for measuring a phenomenon of interest or if you can't describe the phenomenon you want to study in a way that others can observe it.
Cases like Mochizuki with the ABC conjecture are harder, but at least the ABC conjecture is a know quantity.
It is reassuring that classifying papers by category of research works fairly well. Both phenomena and methodology are described using specialized vocabulary, and mismatches tend to jump out, like trying to use a hadron collider to study the blood pressure of a frog.
I almost like to believe that a crackpot that could masquerade as a scientist might actually discover something because they would be forced to actually engage with the concepts and tools of science.
Re: How the ArXiv Decides What’s Science
#3>> The “insiders” can immediately tell who is an “outsider.” Often it doesn’t take more than a sentence or two, an odd expression, a term used in the wrong context, a phrase that nobody in the field would ever use.
seems a bit like when you're on top of your game with a certain programming language and feeling bored with stackoverflow questions and mailing lists asking the same old questions. Happy that in software we can easily move on to a new language / concept / idea to keep things exciting.
Re: How the ArXiv Decides What’s Science
#4I have found arxiv to be a dead-end when publishing without affiliation. It's impossible to get feedback on papers, let alone the necessary endorsement to submit. That leaves SSRN as the only option. Arxiv requires you to email authors for endorsements which almost never works, since it's essentially spam.
Re: How the ArXiv Decides What’s Science
#5I have found arxiv to be a dead-end when publishing without affiliation. It's impossible to get feedback on papers, let alone the necessary endorsement to submit. That leaves SSRN as the only option. Arxiv requires you to email authors for endorsements which almost never works, since it's essentially spam.
Why not submit to a journal?
Re: How the ArXiv Decides What’s Science
#6I have found arxiv to be a dead-end when publishing without affiliation. It's impossible to get feedback on papers, let alone the necessary endorsement to submit. That leaves SSRN as the only option. Arxiv requires you to email authors for endorsements which almost never works, since it's essentially spam.
There is vixra (vixra.org), but they also (mostly) have the "funny" stuff.
Re: How the ArXiv Decides What’s Science
#7I have found arxiv to be a dead-end when publishing without affiliation. It's impossible to get feedback on papers, let alone the necessary endorsement to submit. That leaves SSRN as the only option. Arxiv requires you to email authors for endorsements which almost never works, since it's essentially spam.
Why not submit to a journal?
1) opposition to journal copyrighting policies
2) cost
Re: How the ArXiv Decides What’s Science
#8I have found arxiv to be a dead-end when publishing without affiliation. It's impossible to get feedback on papers, let alone the necessary endorsement to submit. That leaves SSRN as the only option. Arxiv requires you to email authors for endorsements which almost never works, since it's essentially spam.
Why not submit to a journal?
The "without affiliation" aspect is a dealbreaker in many fields. Lots of journals won't even acknowledge you if you're not at an academic institution.
Re: How the ArXiv Decides What’s Science
#9>> The “insiders” can immediately tell who is an “outsider.” Often it doesn’t take more than a sentence or two, an odd expression, a term used in the wrong context, a phrase that nobody in the field would ever use. seems a bit like when you're on top of your game with a certain programming language and feeling bored with stackoverflow questions and mailing lists asking the same old questions. Happy that in software w…
Of course, you can do that in science too. I believe the intent of that quoted text is not to indicate that all questions in scientific fields represented on arxiv, or even most, are answered. The only purpose is that language easily belies who does not "belong"
Re: How the ArXiv Decides What’s Science
#10The basic heuristic I use for determining what 'counts' as science relies on 3 questions 1) Are there methods or is there a description of how to observe something? 2) Are old methods being applied to a new phenomenon. 3) Are new methods being applied to an old phenomenon. It isn't possible to do science if you don't have a viable tool (method) for measuring a phenomenon of interest or if you can't describe the pheno…
The number of String Theory papers, PhD candidates, and conferences was staggering.