From: helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de   
      
   In article ,   
   ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:   
      
   > helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de (Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)) writes:   
   > >So far, it seems that everyone is defending me and no-one is defending   
   > >arXiv.   
   >   
   >   Instead of these three long paragraphs digressing into   
   >   irrelevant sidebars about the popularity of Twitter or who   
   >   once moderated this newsgroup but making a secret of what   
   >   actually /is/ your problem with arXiv, I'd have preferred   
   >   the following structure of a post titled "problems with arXiv":   
   >   
   > My problem with arXiv is ...   
      
   that a paper published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical   
   Society, one of the handful of top journals in the field of cosmology,   
   is not allowed into the obviously appropriate astro-ph category at   
   arXiv.  The Scientific Director of arXiv, Steinn Sigurdsson, has now   
   publicly stated that SCOAP3 somehow prevents all MNRAS papers from   
   appearing in astro-ph, claiming that arXiv would get sued if that   
   happened.  He doesn't say by whom or why.  arXiv refused to tell me why   
   my paper had been reclassified (to gen-ph; I have since deleted the   
   submission, which I was exceptionally allowed to do, but then arXiv   
   still complained that I broke the rules by doing so) until some   
   prominent colleagues put in a word for me, but even then they were told   
   different reasons from those I was told.  Throughout arXiv behaved in an   
   arrogant, condescending, and thorougly unprofessional manner.   
      
   Most people think that Sigurdsson is lying (or at least severely   
   misinformed, which would imply gross incompetence on his part and   
   negligence on the part of arXiv for keeping him in post now that that is   
   known), but if so, then why?  If SCOAP3 does prevent all MNRAS papers   
   from being in astro-ph (and presumably similarly for other journals and   
   other fields), the community should be aware of it.   
      
   The main downside of this is that most of the community believes that   
   all serious papers can be on arXiv if the author wants them to be (and   
   the journal allows it).  That is manifestly not the case, which leads to   
   a huge disadvantage for authors of such papers, made worse by   
   irresponsible people in power who claim that any good paper can be on   
   arXiv (and hence that papers which are not are not good).   
      
   Much of the community relies on arXiv, but arXiv behaves   
   unprofessionally and can continue to do so because it is accountable to   
   no-one.   
      
   More at https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2022/02/04/submission-to-arxiv/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)