arXiv, viXra, and ResearchGate cringe

Recommended Posts

Hello amicable DCC members,

You might be searching for research papers to review, annotate, and cite, but every so often you delve into other, unrelated papers on preprint, e-print, and even a "social network for researchers and scholars." You might know them as viXra, arXiv, and ResearchGate, three websites that host some.. peculiar and preposterous papers on their websites due to the lack of moderation on their websites. Don't get me wrong, a good majority of the articles and discussions on arXiv and ResearchGate can be beneficial to researchers seeking out some specific, evasive information, myself included, but the mods sometimes let articles slip under their vigilant eye.. and for the "general" subjects.. those are "abandon all hope ye who enter here" sectors, as they are unfiltered. Expect to see some crackpottery in the "general math, general physics, etc." areas.

And... viXra.. ohohoho.. in the spirit of scientific inquiry and the pursuit of free science, was formed "by scientists who find they are unable to submit their articles to because of Cornell University's policy of endorsements and moderation designed to filter out e-prints that they consider inappropriate." Given the level of insanity present on some papers on arXiv, one may easily guess what sort of "content" and "scholarly research" that viXra accumulates. Said content ranges from ''''proofs'''' of famous mathematical conjectures, such as the good ol' college attempt at the Riemann hypothesis to someone proving that Numbers Have An End, which even has its own subreddit. viXra even has its own comments for each abstract, delighting the "bottom half" of the Internet, but the scientific community considers it an item of derision and ridicule.

Finally.. ResearchGate. It might be the best of the three, considering ithas more restrictive regulations to create an account(You have to be affiliated with a recognized academic instuition, and in general there's a waitlist.) And it is useful, occasionally, for finding papers and information on particularily specific information(I used it for my research on Gratzel, or Dye-sensitized solar cells and their efficiency), and researchers can even ask and answer questions. Researcher profiles contain the "RG score," a score that apparently takes into account the research outcomes you share, your interactions, and the reputation of your peers. The algorithm has been critized for bein g "intransparent and irreproducible,"(there were significant changes in a researcher's RG score despite the relatively stability of his profile), failing "to take in many biblometric measurements," it has been deemed as a shallow metric that must be augmented before it can taken credibly. Notwithstanding the various shortfalls with the RG score, even if one manages to pass their "vetting process" for an account, this does not mean their research is in any way credible. This is great, since my inbox is full to the brim with a decent amount of people who have "proved" various mathematical enigmas every week, along with.. uh.. the "Analysis and Qualitative Effects of Large Breasts on Aerodynamic Performance and Wake of a “Miss Kobayashi’s Dragon Maid” Character." (And no, it's not a joke.) straight from ResearchGate's procurement of "research," of course.

Now that I've started you off, let us procure and discuss the insane crackpottery that comes from the annals of scholarly research.




Edited by IntegrationNation
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Not sure how relevant this is but:


The paper above, titled "Get me off your **** mailing list," has been accepted by the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology.

Let us explain.

The journal, despite its distinguished name, is a predatory open-access journal, as noted by io9. These sorts of low-quality journals spam thousands of scientists, offering to publish their work for a fee.

In 2005, computer scientists David Mazières and Eddie Kohler created this highly profane ten-page paper as a joke, to send in replying to unwanted conference invitations. It literally just contains that seven-word phrase over and over, along with a nice flow chart and scatter-plot graph.

According to the blog Scholarly Open Access, this PDF made the rounds, and an Australian computer scientist named Peter Vamplew sent it to the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology in response to spam from the journal. Apparently, he thought the editors might simply open and read it.

Instead, they automatically accepted the paper — with an anonymous reviewer rating it as "excellent" — and requested a fee of $150.

This incident is pretty hilarious. But it's a sign of a bigger problem in science publishing. This journal is one of many online-only, for-profit operations that take advantage of inexperienced researchers under pressure to publish their work in any outlet that seems superficially legitimate. They're very different from respected, rigorous journals like Science and Nature that publish much of the research you read about in the news. Most troublingly, the predatory journals don't conduct peer-review — the process where other scientists in the field evaluate a paper before it's published.

(Quoted article by Vox)

What a mood honestly

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.