Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Ok, so I'd like to see Alex's response to Steven's (& my) last posts. I don't want to let this post interfere with the flow of that one however, I might be waiting a long time, so I submit this one in getting back onto the main flow ..
I followed up on Alex's lead yesterday:
What a menagerie ! Following some posts Prof Ratcliffe's board, I found the following: (Fyi, as background 'arXiv' is where I go to find quality science papers which sometimes result in my threads):
"The stringent rules now applied for arXiv candidate papers are impacting ever more seriously on the listing of papers by new authors or on topics that are even slightly off-centre. There is a definite “old boys’ club” emerging in the arXiv hierarchy, and this is reinforced by the requirement that any submission be endorsed by approved endorsers in the specific category in which the paper is to be archived. Where would an author gain access to such endorsers? At the suggestion of Chuck Gallo, We would like to appeal to those of you who are approved endorsers to let us have your names, contact details, and categories in which are permitted to endorse. We will display these in a list, and authors trying to get onto arXiv can make direct requests for endorsement to the relevant persons. If you are willing to participate, please send your details to the editor."
"Old Boys' Club", eh ?... Sounds suspicious, to me.
So then I also found a site created by one of his 'Alternative Cosmology Group' colleagues. It is intended to be a place where alternative science papers can be published without the 'discrimination' cited in the above quote. It is called 'viXra'.
Note: viXra.org is not connected or affiliated in any way with arXiv.org
"It is the stated purpose of viXra to accept all reasonable submissions of scientific papers. However we reserve the right to reject or withdraw papers and we are likely to do so if we become aware of the following:
Vulgarity, Racism, Potential libel, Plagiarism, Misleading information that could be dangerous, Commercial Marketing Hype, Copyright violation, Multiple submissions of essentailly the same work"
And that's about all they do to scrutinise these seemingly legitimate 'Science' papers. It contains about about 228 papers over the one year, for which it has been up & running (lots of revision papers included in this figure, also).
They go on about how they don't discriminate on a scientific basis etc, etc. I looked thru some of their papers. Some are rubbish .. half completed studies, ideas only, etc. Some might be legitimate having some scientific basis, but who knows which is which ?
Then I found another site .. 'snarXiv.org' .. and then 'snarXiv vs arXiv'. It turns out that snarXiv.org papers are generated by a kind of artificial intelligence software which results in almost nonsense papers but written in such a way that an unwary reader might accept its contents as legitimate ! The 'snarXiv vs arXiv' site is a test to see if you can pick the bogus paper generated by snarXiv - not as easy as it sounds !
My point with this one is: how easy it is to find easy access to (sometimes), seemingly legitimate research, and then go blindly forward with 'believing' it.
How does one separate the deception from the fraud ?
... Alex ?
Cheers
|
It's a case of the further you get off the well beaten track, the murkier things get and the less reliable they become. In most of these "alternative" sites there's a great deal of absolute rubbish and you'd be surprised how much of it comes from scientists...just tossing wild ideas out onto the wind. There's also a hell of a lot of nonsense from "amateurs" who have little or no idea of what they're doing or on about. But very occasionally you get a gem in amongst the dross...very occasionally, mind you (they're exceptionally hard to pick, though).