Not long ago, I posted one article on how to improve arXiv.org and make it the best science publication system. One of my concerns about arXiv I pointed out was about the issue of over-regulation. Now I feel the issue is more serious than I thought.
I submitted my last paper to arXiv a week ago for the little celebration of the anniversary of my first mirror matter paper. But the administrators decided to put it on hold for an announcement. I don’t know what I did in the paper to trigger such a cautionary action. But it is just a pure scientific paper and probably one of the most important of my works. Apparently they have no interest in solving the issue soon. I have no choice but have also submitted it to a traditional journal. At this moment, I am not sure who will publish it first if they do in the end.
I always thought I could have arXiv.org as my last piece of pure land for my works. This used to be the place where I don’t have to plead my case and persuade some really stubborn and biased referees/editors to get my work published. All my calculations and arguments are in the paper. Open-minded people who read it and try to understand it will understand it while those who don’t will probably never. So far arXiv has done that except for my last paper.
The best of arXiv is that it used to go with no arbitrary refereeing system and timely open access (typically appropriate one or two day’s delay). Now such kind of over-regulation becomes more often as I discovered other cases in writing my previous post on arXiv. Is it just some moderators abusing their power? Or is the whole arXiv system shifting in the wrong direction?
I wish we could keep this small pure land untouched for science. I hope that the leaders of arXiv won’t turn it into another traditional publication system. But are they listening?
