arXiv problems: intermediate-length summary

Many (most?) colleagues in astronomy (and probably some other fields) rely on arXiv for access to publications. In some cases people relay on arXiv for both discovering and reading interesting research, but in any case, many people rely on arXiv for learning about new (interesting) research. Usually, new papers are noticed in the abstract mailings and/ or listings. Since those are by category, it is essential not only for a paper to be on arXiv, but also for it to be in the proper category. arXiv itself claims that it has moderation but not refereeing, and certainly doesn't have the resources to critically examine all submissions. (One can assume that most unacceptable submissions are kept out by the endorsement system.) Thus, by its own admission, arXiv cannot replace traditional journals in terms of quality control. In fact, the main reason why most stuff at arXiv is of reasonable quality is that it is intended to be, or has been, submitted to a traditional journal. With the Journal-reference field, arXiv recognizes the importance of journals.

If you rely too much on arXiv, keep in mind that you might be missing things worth reading, even if the author would like them to be on arXiv (and in the correct category), and that you and/or a collaborator might have similar problems in the future.

It should thus happen only extremely rarely that arXiv doesn't allow a paper to appear in the appropriate category. At most, such rare exceptions must be due to obvious mistakes on the part of the journal involved and, because they are so obvious, there is no reason not to inform the author quickly as to why the paper has been rejected, and there should be a clear explanation (which doesn't need to be lengthy, especially considering that the reason for rejection should be obvious) for the rejection.

I have been uploading papers to arXiv for more than a quarter of a century. Until recently, all of my refereed-journal papers appeared on arXiv, and the only problem in that respect was that my 2012 MNRAS paper was put on hold and later allowed to continue as intended (no information from arXiv, despite corresponding requests, for either action). My latest MNRAS paper was submitted to arXiv on 20 April 2020. It was put on hold then reclassified to the physics/gen-ph category, which I consider to be inappropriate for several reasons. As described below, it took more than three months for me to even be told why it had been reclassified, and that only after a well known cosmologist threatened the Scientific Director of arXiv that he would complain to the arXiv sponsors if things aren't cleared up. Also, there is evidence that the reason I was given is not the real one. I then unsubmitted it, because I didn't want it to appear in the wrong category. Note that when a paper is reclassified by arXiv, the author doesn't even get an automatic email; the paper should then appear in the category chosen by arXiv. (In my case, it didn't appear on arXiv because I unsubmitted it. Though unsubmitting a paper after reclassification is technically possible, it apparently is against the rules, though I didn't realize that at the time and followed the advice of colleagues who agreed that it shouldn't appear in the physics/gen-ph category.) I discussed this by email with several colleagues; some thought that it must be some sort of technical glitch. I wrote to to ask why. To this day, from I have received only automatic and/or boilerplate responses with regard to my questions as to why it was reclassified. Some colleagues also wrote to in support of my cause. None got any response, though I did get a response intended for one of them, saying that arXiv does not discuss moderation decisions with third parties.

The main reason that arXiv is so popular is that it is a one-stop shop. Sometimes monopolies are good, and this is one of them. However, the downside is that if the monopolist does something wrong, it is difficult to get it corrected and/or find an alternative. arXiv has become the main means of distribution in many fields, including cosmology/ astrophysics/astronomy. However, the community exercises essentially no control over arXiv. If one disagrees with a referee, one can take it up with the journal editor. If one disagrees with a journal editor, one can submit to another journal. But there is no realistic alternative to arXiv. Unfortunately, that means that many are willing to accept behaviour which in other cases would be unacceptable. (I also note that some claim that everything worth reading is at arXiv, but if such people read only stuff at arXiv, they are not in a position to defend that claim. Also, not only is not everything at arXiv, and for the stuff which is there, it is not always the final version, and even if it is, that is not always clear.)

The arXiv help pages mention the possibility of appealing a moderation decision, but, at least in the astro-ph category, the necessary information does not seem to be publicly available. There is a description, but if one tries to follow it, it sometimes refers to information which is not there, not easy to find, or unclear. So it's not that the process itself is not documented, but rather that it is at least unclear how to follow it in practice. (Note that for other categories more information is available than for astro-ph. It is also not clear when astro-ph is seen as a top-level category and when it is seen to be part of the physics category.)

On 14 May (this and subsequent dates all refer to 2020), I wrote to the Scientific Director of arXiv, Steinn Sigurdsson. He did not reply until much later (see below). On 15 May, I wrote to Dong Lai, who appears to have been responsible for astrophyisics within the physics category; I never received a reply from him.

On 25 May, I wrote to Licia Verde, Chair of the arXiv Scientific Advisory Board. Her first reply seemed guarded, but not completely negative. Hoping that she could straighten things out or at least tell me what the problem was, I replied quickly. Her next reply was much more negative, essentially saying that arXiv is always right, there is nothing that she could do anyway, and it was clear that she didn't want to get involved. In her third reply, she said that the Scientific Advisory Board does not concern itself with specific reclassification issues and suggested that I contact "the chair of the appropriate Subject Advisory Comittee which is Physics in this case". Again, in most respects astro-ph is a top-level category at arXiv and not part of the physics category. In fact, what I want to avoid is having my paper appear in what I consider to be an inappropriate sub-category of the physics category. Also, arXiv didn't list a chair for that committee, only one co-chair (at least on one page), Robert Seiringer (who is not an astronomer; both Steinn Sigurdsson and Licia Verde are not only astronomers but also cosmologists, at least to some extent). Since my paper had been accepted to appear in physics/gen-ph, and those involved could have said that it is more appropriate for astro-ph after all, I saw no point in debating the classification with those responsible for physics, as opposed to astrophysics. Nevertheless, I did contact Seiringer, who said that the advisory committee can't comment on individual submissions. Hence, not only is there disagreement between arXiv's documented appeals procedure and how those involved actually behave, there seems to be no system of checks and balances within arXiv, not to mention the problem that the community, despite relying on arXiv, in practice has no way to arbitrate disputes with it.

On 25 June I wrote to Steinn Sigurdsson again, after a colleague who has known him for a long time asked him to look into it. On 26 June I received a short reply, saying that he was aware of the problem and would look into it. I sent him a short reminder on 6 July. On 13 July, I sent a longer reminder, explaining the situation from my point of view. I received no replies to those two reminders.

On 21 July (dates refer to CEST, GMT+2:00), Max Tegmark wrote to Steinn Sigurdsson, saying that not only does he believe that in general a paper in MNRAS should go into astro-ph, but also that he had read my paper and saw no reason for it not to appear in astro-ph and also that if the paper wasn't out of limbo within a week that he would email the Simons Foundation and other donors regarding fairness, transparency and accountability. Since he had received no response, he wrote again on 25 July. I also wrote to Steinn Sigurdsson on 25 July, at the time not aware that Tegmark had just written him (otherwise I would have waited), but since I received a rather long reply from Steinn Sigurdsson only 5 minutes after I sent my email to him, I assume that it was Tegmark's email which prompted his reply.

What was the reply? After more than three months, he claims that "[t]he category choice was based on the substantiveness of the submission". One can argue that that is a judgement call, but the following information is relevant:

Most colleagues assume that papers which appear in respected journals automatically qualify for arXiv. (In fact, some open-access directives might even require putting the paper on arXiv, which doesn't make sense if there is no guarantee that arXiv will accept it.)

As mentioned above, like it or not, many colleagues rely exclusively on arXiv, some for everything and some at least to see what is new; thus not having one's paper in the appropriate category at arXiv is the modern-day equivalent of excommunication, and so should happen, for papers which have appeared in respected and respectable refereed journals recognized as leading in the field, only in extremely exceptional circumstances.

Note that the reason given is lack of "substantiveness". This is, of course, a matter of judgement, and is presumably intentionally chosen so as to be not objectively contestable, which essentially means that arXiv can reject any paper and claim lack of "substantiveness". As long as that is not defined, the reason is arbitrary. My guess is that almost everyone in the field would consider a paper accepted by Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society to be `substantive' enough for astro-ph, especially considering that many non-refereed papers appear in astro-ph; some are refereed later and some are published, but some are rejected, and some are never even submitted to a journal.

That in itself is bad enough. However, he mentioned other reasons to Tegmark which he didn't mention to me.

So we have three issues:

Note also that if a paper is reclassified, not only is no automatic email sent, but it is against the rules to unsubmit the paper. One thus has to accept whatever classification is decided (perhaps by mistake) by arXiv. While having the paper published does give one the chance to appeal, there is no guarantee that such an appeal will be successful, and even if it is, then I doubt that the paper would be announced in the appropriate category, which is the main reason for having it on arXiv for most people (for me, the only reason).

I escalated as highly as possible within arXiv. After I had asked Cornell University (which hosts arXiv) to investigate possible academic misconduct, I received an email from Eleonora Presani, Executive Director of arXiv. Her stance is essentially the same as that of Licia Verdi: my accusations themselves don't seem to have been investigated and authors just have to live with the fact that arXiv can reclassify papers at will and even prevent authors from withdrawing them completely before announcement if they disagree with the reclassification. Unfortunately, Cornell takes the point of view that although Cornell maintains and sustains arXiv, it is not the university's role to interfere in the moderation or appeal process.

I think that the above is the shortest summary which conveys the problem. Let me know if you need any more information. I can provide you with email correspondence, but out of courtesy would like to ask those involved first.

Although I would like my paper to appear in astro-ph, this in not about just my paper. Rather, it is about the question whether the community wants arXiv to decide which papers, and hence which people, are allowed to be part of that community, as opposed to peer review by respected journals such as MNRAS.

I humbly submit that it is not appropriate professional conduct to reclassify a paper, at least one with which experts in the field see no reason at all for such a reclassification; not inform the author that it has been reclassified, much less of the reasons for the reclassification; make it against the rules to withdraw a reclassified paper before it appears in what the author deems to be the appropriate category; ignore the appeal (also, the appeal is difficult because, at least for astro-ph, the process is not well documented); finally give a reason only after several months and then only after being threatened that the arXiv sponsors would be be informed of misconduct (and even then apparently lying about the reasons for reclassification).

If you want to discuss this with those who wrote to arXiv in support of me, let me ask them first. However, I think that I have made all information which they have publicly available. Of course, I have much correspondence which I could make available (modulo the permission of those who agreed to help out, perhaps with anonymity) if anyone is interested in the gory details.

If you would like to help, please contact those responsible.

last modified on Friday, February 04, 2022 at 12:41:43 PM by helbig@astro.mNuOlStPiAvMa!