I'm in a position where I will have fairly inconsequential work to publish soon. I'm working in the blockchain space, where it is common for whitepapers to be posted on individual websites or github.

I'm personally very bothered by arXiv's practices of blacklisting people, and the field I'm involved in claims to be all about openness and transparency.

I'm not bothered by my work being dismissed because it was uploaded onto viXra, but I am bothered by the possibility of arXiv banning me from future contributions.

I will be able to have review/support from those who have published in reputable math journals and are affiliated with universities. However this will occur later than is practical, since I am involved in the launching of a product based off my work.

I am also planning on putting up my low-quality or prototypical on viXra in the future, because I would like my arXiv to be higher quality.

ViXra doesn't track citations easily, and I do not feel it is unethical to submit work to both platforms.

  • 3
    arXiv only blacklists people because they’re a small team trying to stay afloat in an endless ocean of crackpot submissions. In other words, they do it because they don’t have time — and they certainly don’t have enough time to track everything in viXra. – knzhou Jan 19 '20 at 17:53
  • 4
    Many people you see on viXra will be blacklisted on arXiv, but consider that the causation may go the opposite way you think. – knzhou Jan 19 '20 at 17:54
  • @knzhou I agree with you there. I was under the impression that whatever automation they have is what causes people to be repeated flagged and wrongly blacklisted; dodgy automation used because it's the best they've got and they need to use it to reach the low cost of $8 per paper. – Brayton Jan 20 '20 at 1:36
  • @knzhou however I am still concerned that if humans see my work and see where it was originally (pre)published, then they might use as the "viXra for crackpots" heuristic. I'd doubt their automated system would check viXra. – Brayton Jan 20 '20 at 1:39
  • 1
    Blacklisting is extremely rare in the computer science branch of arXiv. I don't want to say impossible, but despite ten years of experience as an arXiv moderator, I'm not aware of a single example. – JeffE Apr 21 '20 at 8:11

No. As a general rule, arXiv moderators neither know nor care what's posted on viXra; it's just not important enough to spend time on.

(I was an arXiv moderator for over a decade.)

  • I just happened to come across this page (physicsworld.com/a/what-is-arxiv-backwards) where Hamish claims that a certain researcher might be on ArXiv's blacklist. So perhaps it's not the usual moderators who know about it. It may be some super-moderator who does it. Or maybe it's just a false assumption of people. But seriously, ArXiv has no need to reject papers. It's a pre-print repository. People deposit their papers with the faith that they'd get a timestamp. Not honoring that, goes against the whole principle of a pre-print repository. – Julia Sep 5 '20 at 11:35
  • @Julia I think you're reversing cause and effect. Authors who are blacklisted on arXiv are more likely to post to viXra because they're blacklisted on arXiv. They're not blacklisted on arXiv because they post on viXra. – JeffE Sep 6 '20 at 21:45
  • 1
    ArXiv has no need to reject papers — Some categories get a lot of garbage. For good or ill, researchers use arXiv to keep up with the state of the art in their area. Accepting all that garbage would make arXiv much less useful for that purpose. Most rejected submissions in CS either don't match the subject area at all (for example, papers about politics or theology or algebraic K-theory), or don't even look like research articles (for example: no abstract, no references, no punctuation, LOTS of CapITaL LeTTerS!!!). – JeffE Sep 6 '20 at 21:53
  • Garbage papers get rejected even in ViXra. The point is about the restrictions of needing endorsement etc. On the plus side, ArXiv's restrictions at least distributes the load to other pre-prints like TechRxiv, ViXra and EngRxiv. Also remember that frivolous papers are the result of the exploitative "publish or perish". Imagine what would happen if researchers went on strike, refusing to submit to "publish or perish", low salaries and having their reputations dragged through the mud for tiny errors, while corrupt politicians, fake godmen, astrologers, faith healers etc. make tons of money. – Julia Sep 12 '20 at 4:22
  • Also remember that frivolous papers are the result of the exploitative "publish or perish" — Really? Are there universities where frivolous papers actually carry (positive) weight in hiring and tenure decisions?? — having their reputations dragged through the mud for tiny errors — You and I clearly live in very different worlds. – JeffE Sep 12 '20 at 17:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.