Dark Side of Arxiv.org?

Many bioinformatics groups recently discovered arxiv.org and are going gaga about submitting all their lab preprints there before sending them to journals. There are even blogs like Haldane’s Sieve tailored toward reviewing ‘bleeding edge’ arxiv preprints as soon as they show up.

Physicists were using arxiv.org for over two decades and found out about their alleged practice of blacklisting authors that appear very frightening to us. Professor Brian Josephson commented in our earlier blog post -

What you dont say is that arxiv has a practice of quick reviewing of submissions before they become public, blocking submissions that look unusual. There is no effective appeal against this process as there usually is with journal publication, and since major advances as opposed to incremental ones often do look unusual and are much contested at the time, this policy is thus one that acts against the interests of scientific advance. People may be interested in the web site archivefreedom.org, set up to publicise the misdeeds of the archive, and in an abortive attempt (see http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/articles/arxiv_correspondence.html) to get arxivs procedures improved.

We checked archivefreedom.org and found rather scary case histories of individual scientists being blocked from sending papers to arxiv.org, allegedly because of political reasons. The most worrisome case is of [Carlos Castro Perelman, where apparently

arXiv.org administrators threatened his institution for supporting him. Dr. Carlos Castro wrote:

**My Struggle with Ginsparg (arXiv.org) and the Road to Cyberia:

A Scientific-Gulag in Cyberspace**

The Troubles began with the Nuclear Physics B Journal

Lantz Miller (New York resident, Columbia University Journalist student) in his article in Crosscurrents magazine: “Migrations of Ideas in the Age of the Internet and the Socio/Cultural Hegemony of the Scientific Community: Case Studies” that was based on his talk at a Rutgers University Conference in March 2002 (New Jersey) sponsored by the Sociology Dept, described very accurately the origins of my problems with Ginsparg. In the late Fall of 1999 I received two positive referee reports of a mainstream paper submitted to Nuclear Physics B (NPB). The editorial office (Elsevier publishers in Holland) then asked me for a disk file (Tex file) of such paper, another intended sign of publication. A few months later in January 28, 2000, I received a highly suspicious declination letter (e-mail ) from NPB (Paul Schuddenboom) after a member of the Editorial board had shown a particular interest in my paper but later vetoed its publication (I think it may have been H. Ooguri, now at Caltech, but I have no way of proving this due to the secrecy of the journal).

I would have not have minded at all if they had asked me to revise the paper to fit the needs of the member of the Editorial board. After receiving this highly suspicious declination letter, the co-director of my center in Atlanta, CTSPS (Center for Theoretical Studies of Physical Systems in Clark Atlanta University) Prof. Carlos Handy wrote a letter to NPB expressing our concerns for this declination letter, especially after having received two positive referee reports and having sent them the disk file of my paper.

What we received back in response from NPB was yet another slap in the face. Not only they insisted that they had done nothing wrong, because they had not “promised” anything, but they had looked at my recent work in the e-archives, run at the time by the Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico, and found my work to be outlandish. NPB was clearly referring to my work on the Extended (“ new”) Relativity Theory (later developed in Clifford Spaces) based on earlier work by Laurent Nottale (in 1983) on the Scale Relativity Theory. In the latter theory the Planck length scale was postulated as a minimum scale (resolution) in Nature, not unlike postulating the speed of light as the maximum attainable speed in the ordinary Relativity Theory.

However, what NPB seemed to have forgotten entirely is that my NPB paper that had received two positive referee reviews was a mainstream paper that had nothing to do whatsoever with my work on the Extended (“new”) Relativity theory. In fact, an extended version of my original NPB paper has been published in the first rate journal Classical and Quantum Gravity 20 (2003) 3577-3592: “Anti de Sitter Spaces (AdS2n) from SO(2n -1, 2) Instantons “.

The reader may ask, what does all this have to do with Ginsparg? Well, lo and behold, when I tried submitting my most recent paper (at the time) in early February 2000 to the hep-th (high energy physics theory) category my paper was removed and displaced to the general physics category (the bottom of the pile in readership and audience). It does not take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that it was NPB who complained to Ginsparg that Castro was posting outlandish papers in the Los Alamos archives. After all NPB admitted in writing that they had looked at my work in the Los Alamos archives in late January 2000 and found my work “outlandish.” The reader may say that this is nothing but circumstantial evidence and that it does not constitute a proof. People have been arrested, tried, convicted and executed in the USA based solely on circumstantial evidence.

Having explained the sequence of events that led to the beginning of my problems with Ginsparg in early February 2000, I must add that I wrote a letter to NPB denouncing what I thought to be their shameful behavior. They politely wrote back and told me that they will inquire about this unfortunate incident. I never heard a word from them again (to be expected).

The next time I tried posting a paper to the hep-th archive-category the same thing occurred, it was removed automatically and diverted to the general physics category without the possibility of cross-listing to other categories. I realized that the robot at the archives was programmed to recognize my e-mail address and to divert my papers automatically from the hep-th category to the general physics category.

What to do next? Well, I decided to post my next paper from the e-mail account of one of my co-authors of a joint-paper, Jorge Mahecha, directly from Trieste, Italy, since I was visiting Trieste at the time. It worked, the paper was successfully posted in the hep-th archive-category in August, 2000, without any problems until, until ……

Until I was traveling in France and Spain in August, September, when Jorge Mahecha e-mailed me telling me that Ginsparg had written an ultimatum giving us a two-day period to remove the fraudulent Cambridge affiliation from one of our other co-authors, M.S. El Naschie, chief Editor of the Journal of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. Apparently Ginsparg received a complaint from Cambridge University (later I found out that it was Michael Green). Since Jorge Mahecha had only two days, he had no choice but to comply and removed the El Naschie’s Cambridge affiliation without being able to make a thorough inquiry as to the veracity of the horrible allegations against M.S El Naschie. Shortly after, Jorge Mahecha opted to remove the paper altogether to avoid any further problems, before we had an opportunity to perform an investigation of the veracity of the serious charges raised by Michael Green (at Cambridge University) against M. S. El Naschie.

Having described the chain events in late January 2000 (the NPB fiasco), the subsequent removal of my papers to the hep-th category in early February 2000, and afterwards, the El Naschie-Michael Green incident in late August 2000, which I will analyze in further detail shortly, I will now reveal a personal e-mail written by Ginsparg himself to Fred Cooper at Los Alamos which is full of insults, lies and threats.

The Actual e-mail from Ginsparg to Fred Cooper at Los Alamos:

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:47:02 -0600 (MDT)

From: Paul Ginsparg ginsparg@lanl.gov

To: fcooper@physics.bc.edu

CC: simeon@mmm.lanl.gov, schwander@horse.lanl.gov

Subject: Re: Castro Clarification

a) castro is an obvious nut and all of his papers are abject nonsense

b) castro had a paper with a co-author whose affiliation was forged as DAMTP (Cambridge), and we received a complaint directly from DAMTP. he was given a deadline to correct or remove the affiliation, or lose submission privileges. he CHOSE not to comply.

conclusion: castro is more than welcome to publish in conventional journals we don’t have time for him here, and he is fortunate that he is permitted in the General Physics category.

[ next is a phrase from F. Cooper’s initial letter to Ginsparg ]

“Carlos Handy at Clark Atlanta was a former post-doc of mine and this person’s boss. If you could handle this with some sensitivity, I would appreciate that”

[ Ginsparg continues ]

note that if clark university will insist on this, then we will cease to regard clark university as a responsible accredited institution. (we rely on institutional affiliation for effective endorsement. note most of his recent activity has been from italy so we have no idea why clark univ is even involved at this point.)

you should explain to your former postdoc Carlos Handy that he is the one who should be embarrassed at this point. we wouldn’t care except this one idiot has wasted more time than the average ten idiots… i hope this is sensitive enough

pg.

There is lot more at the original link and we encourage readers to go through it before submitting another preprint to arxiv.

Archivefreedom.org also alleges that the ‘new’ endorsement system is merely a smokescreen.

The New Endorsement System: Merely a Smoke Screen

In January 2004, arXiv.org introduced an automated endorsement system which was touted by operators of the system as an answer to complaints about the archive’s restrictive policies. However, there have been cases where blacklisted scientists have attempted to use this supposedly objective endorsement system and the outcome has been overriden to ensure that their works are still blocked.

Another drawback is that most endorsers are fearful of endorsing novel papers because they worry that they could lose their endorser status if their decision runs counter to the tastes of the arXiv moderators. In fact, the arXiv.org website states that the archive administrators reserve the right to revoke any endorser’s endorsement status. When one blacklisted scientist’s paper was rejected, the reason given by the archive moderator was: “No legitimate endorsements from current users.” When the scientist then asked “will you guarantee that persons who endorse me will not be victimised by having their arXiv privileges withdrawn?” no substantive response was forthcoming.

The scientist concluded from this that they had refused to guarantee that anyone who endorsed him would not be punished for doing so. Thus one could surmise that the endorsement system is merely a facade to give the false impression that the electronic preprint archive operates in a fair manner.

We completely agree with professor Josephson that ‘major advances as opposed to incremental ones often do look unusual and are much contested at the time’. Are we advancing science here by promoting arxiv.org? Why should such an importance practice of removing/relisting papers not have any transparency or procedure of appealing the decision?

-————————————

Edit.

We requested arxiv.org to comment on the above issues, and Jake Weiskoff from arxiv.org wrote to us by email:

You may review our moderation policies, located at:

http://arxiv.org/help/moderation

and our primer and submission process via:

http://arxiv.org/help/primer

http://arxiv.org/help/submit

for additional information.

Hopefully there will be additional clarifications on the appeal policy, and lack of transparency on which authors get blacklisted or whether individual arxiv adminstrators can block a paper for personal or political reasons.


Do not forget to check our new membership site with a lot more information on bioinformatics.

Written by M. //