Timeline for Submitting to arXiv when unaffiliated
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8 at 19:52 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Stefan Kohl♦ | ||
| Sep 29, 2015 at 19:18 | review | Late answers | |||
| Sep 29, 2015 at 19:58 | |||||
| Mar 14, 2015 at 15:16 | comment | added | Marcel Bischoff | I never saw a high-quality article on viXra.org, maybe someone can give an example. I saw article on arXiv, though, which was so wrong that you can literally give it to your "real analysis" students and ask them as an exercise to find the mistake. | |
| Apr 15, 2010 at 5:22 | comment | added | Paul Delhanty | @JBL - you wrote ".. than that your work is so brilliant that ..." hence my quote from vixra.org. Also I agree with Phil Gibbs - I think you are scaremongering about viXra.org. | |
| Apr 14, 2010 at 18:35 | comment | added | Phil Gibbs | There is no reason why anyone should consider you a crank because you use viXra.org. There are many papers there that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. There are also many cranky papers on arXiv.org. People post on viXra.org because for some reason they can't or don't want to use arXiv.org, not because they are cranks. Some people use both. | |
| Apr 13, 2010 at 13:19 | comment | added | JBL | @Paul, I'm not sure it what way your first comment is a response to me. I encourage you to continue your mathematical work -- I just think that you should avoid viXra if you don't want to be labeled (incorrectly) as a crank. | |
| Apr 13, 2010 at 4:19 | comment | added | Paul Delhanty | @JBL re: cranks problem - that is why I wrote about the need for a trusted (MO like) reputation system layered on top. MO reputation looks to me better than traditional peer review. The average standard of the Wikipedia maths article looks to me better than the average maths paper on arXiv.org. Furthermore, (1) the trusted reputation system could evolve later after a reasonable archive of datestamped articles had built up (2) it could be external to and not exclusive to viXra.org. (It could be the MO reputation system if MO wanted to evolve that way.) | |
| Apr 13, 2010 at 4:07 | comment | added | Paul Delhanty | @JBL from vixra.org/why " Firstly, many amateur scientists are just trying to do ordinary science. They do not have to make the next great paradigm shift in science before their work can be useful." That's right - I'm not claiming to have proved/disproved the Riemann Hypothesis - just trying to do good solid maths/science outside of traditional academia. | |
| Apr 12, 2010 at 13:09 | comment | added | JBL | Incidentally, the "Does the arXiv blacklist authors?" thread is clearly irrelevant to you -- as far as I can tell, everyone on that thread whose subject matter was not related to Mary Magdalene and who hadn't previously tried to evade arXiv moderators was able to successfully get their work up. | |
| Apr 12, 2010 at 13:06 | comment | added | JBL | I would suggest against using viXra -- I don't know how widely known it is, but I think you should worry much more that associating with it gets you ignored as a crank than that your work is so brilliant that the mathematicians you send it to try to steal it. As Phil said in the thread you linked: "Perhaps viXra will catch on and show that an open submission policy is not something to fear. At first they will probably laugh at some of what it contains, but when people find themselves citing e-prints in viXra they may finally get the point." I think we are still in the "at first" stage. | |
| Apr 12, 2010 at 5:23 | comment | added | Paul Delhanty | Thanks - I did not know about viXra.org - so +1 for that alone. In fact, the datestamp is what I want most. One strategy would be to (1) get a datestamped PDF online with viXra.org, (2) use the online PDF to seek an endorser for arXiv.org. Another strategy would to be support viXra.org's principled support of open science by not bothering with step (2). viXra.org plus a trusted reputation system (like mathoverflow) layered on top would be pretty compelling in my view. Food for thought anyway. | |
| Apr 11, 2010 at 10:34 | history | answered | Phil Gibbs | CC BY-SA 2.5 |