RNAAS banned on arXiv

::Playlists For Channel::

::Follow us::

THANKS FOR WATCHING!!

[CoolWorldsLab]

As an update on this video, arXiv have reversed course and removed the total ban of RNAAS. That’s great news but we’re sort of back to where we started - that RNAAS is still treated as a second tier publication with some papers blocked and some not.

[manosantonakis]

I think the fast-publishing platforms like RNAAS do provide value but they are a fundamental change to traditional peer reviewed publishing and arXiv should reflect this. I’d like to see an “arXiv-early” section for pre-publications that are not peer reviewed yet. The clear distinction would allow you to see an early publication but also understand that it has not been peer reviewed yet.

[robertschlesinger]

I have been using arXiv since its inception. One of my millennium resolutions was to look at papers in my several research interests each of the five publication days per week. This is manageable in gr-qc or hep-theory, or several mathematics sub-topics. The Astronomy and astrophysics section, which I also go through, typically contains 300 to 350 preprints per week. It could be nearing a tipping point where researchers are in danger of being so overwhelmed that there is too much research to digest, even when focusing on the sub-topics. I'm not taking sides at this time, but I prefer preprints that are "refereeable" on topics that are falsifiable or based on solid mathematics or physics, or observational data. I also view other databases and fas (fast announcement services), but arXiv is clearly preferred worldwide. An off topic matter of interest might be what to do with the growing preprint literature coming out of China. How will arXive handle this, especially with the non-Latinized language barrier. [I am well-aware of the occasional arXiv papers in Russian, but indexing Chinese could be a far greater challenge than Cyrillic.]
Thank you for your video.

[dutta.alankar]

Recently faced this issue on astro-ph while trying to post my RNAAS article on ArXiv. It was a small but important work which required immediate attention of some people working in the Astrophysics community. But ArXiv objected to hosting this article. This was really baffling.

[Oleg.G.]

Instead of making yes/no decisions on whether submissions are "substantive" and "refereeable, " I'd like to see arXiv accept ALL content and then offer post-publication online peer review functionality on the same website, whereby vetted volunteer reviewers could respond to submissions much in the same way as it happens in traditional journals, except without any editor trying to play the goalkeeper. In other words, I am hoping arXiv will rise to the occasion and provide a free, fully online alternative to traditional, refereed publishing, which is what both researchers and the public really need.

[LaunchPadAstronomy]

I confess I had no idea RNAAS wasn’t on astro-ph. I like your thoughtful discussion of the problem. I’m wondering if they’re just starting to run into a logistical issue and are trying to draw the line somewhere.

[flyingfoxb]

Cool Worlds, you guys do an amazing job! One can only hope that my particular field, archaeology, can learn from and emulate. Great job, guys!

[MsSomeonenew]

It sounds like they are already flooded with papers to the possible point where it's difficult to find anything worth while, so it would make sense if they don't want yet a new stream of even faster less verified information adding to the problem.

[bcddd]

Caught this video late. Sorry guys, you can blame me and the few others like me yelling fraud to all the null hypothesis based publications. You just got caught in the cross fire as an innocent bystander. Glad to see you got it worked out.

[richarddeese]

Thank you for a thoughtful and considerate discussion of this issue. I think there are a couple of potential dangers here. The first is obviously arXiv's transparency of discussion & decision (or lack thereof.) The second is any arbitrariness (real or perceived.) Either or both present a danger that various scientific communities might become fractured and disharmonious over various aspects of choices by arXiv to accept this but reject that. In *_both_* cases, I think that, ultimately, it would be arXiv *_themselves_* - as an outlet for serious science and discussion thereof - that could suffer in the end. The model, of course, is easy to find. Just look at the internet as a whole to see how MySpace has become passe, and Facebook has largely taken its place (as one easy example.) In the case where arXiv chose to be arbitrary in their decisions (and unresponsive to any discussion or criticism thereof), it might easily run the risk of simply being replaced with a better, newer, fancier, more community-driven alternative. Let no one make the simple but crucial mistake of thinking that something can't be replaced with something better - or, at least, different; especially when all that's required are enough grievances, and a few lines of code! In *_any_* case, it is vital to keep the lines is discussion open. Nothing else will serve the scientific community adequately! Thanks again. Rikki Tikki.

[linkin]

Glad to hear that chair astronomers are finally getting the recognition they deserve.

[braytongoodall]

ArXiv also accepts educational resources, like textbook style guides or intros to new math topics. these should continue but are not research by any measure

[zero]

I don't know anything about RNAAS, but I will say one thing; the primary reason that arXiv is so influential is that it is a way to easily access papers (including those that will become influential) very early, and to make your own papers easily accessible. It seems like for brief, concise information regarding ongoing research in Astronomy, RNAAS is well-positioned to either take a similar role, or to usurp that role if arXiv doesn't want it.

Is that necessarily a bad thing for the field, or for astronomers? It's clear to me that it's bad for arXiv in terms of market-share (for lack of a better term) for astronomy preprints, but it isn't clear to me that this will hinder the field. Is RNAAS significantly less accessible to people with an interest in keeping up to date on ongoing research, or finding useful, concise, yet brief explanations of concepts that are being explored?

[wizzardofpaws]

Phds can be very jealous and very protective and so on. If they didn't think of it then gosh it's got to be banned

[phoule]

have other fields been as affected by this decision as astronomy? perhaps arXiv is applying an unspoken bias against a recent spike in astronomical articles (ie that graph you show at the beginning) in recent years, which will only increase as more Gaia data comes in and is studied and written about.

[KipIngram]

I suspect what arXiv is concerned about here is people flooding "speculative material" into circulation. Sounds like you don't have to have your thoughts "together" as well to publish in RNAAS as you do to publish in other journals. That might encourage people to squirt out an RNASS paper in order to "establish first claim" over some ideas, even if they're not really able to substantiate those claims to the extent a well-refereed journal would require. I totally understand that concern and find it hard to question it.

[jackmaxwell]

What a surprise... A company which starts as a reaction to the big publishers which take advantage of their monopolistic positions, starts abusing its power when it becomes big.

[KipIngram]

4:30 - And so you can establish yourself as person who first published it. I imagine that's a process that sees some abuse.

[MaddEndd]

Hmm looks like arXiv reacted to this new trend to rush out a paper in order to be the first in the news and unfortunately the field of exoplanets science might be one of the major sources of this as it is rather popular. This should be a wake-up call for astronomers to work careful and don't write, for lack of a better word, 'sloppy' papers. I don't say that this is how the majority works and I don't think you do this, this last paper you were publishing wouldn't make it into the news anyway as it has a much more technical or theoretical application. Also the media has their part in it, and you are the best example for this. News articles 'confirmed' the existance of the first exomoon before you could.
In short, we had this a long time coming and solutions to it are difficult but it affects everyone. My only hope is that people are adult enough to not turn this into a shitshow that puts astronomy in a bad light.
Bit of a rant, just hope I'm not off-topic.

[CodeLeeCarter]

That is some Distortion you have there, ... I'm happy to hear this is not an issue in 2019 for you.
I don't believe this is the MIC itself, but more related to the level setting you had had on this practical day.