Source | Academic Headlines (ID: SciTouTiao)
On October 15, 2020, Nature magazine published a blockbuster paper on room temperature superconductivity in the form of a cover article, and a research team led by Ranga Dias, an assistant professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Rochester, created a solid molecule of carbonaceous sulfur hydrochloride that exhibits superconductivity at pressures of about 15 degrees Celsius (288 K) and about 267 Gpa.
Figure | Nature
The significance of this blockbuster achievement is self-evident, but it has also aroused widespread controversy.
Not long after, Ronge Hirsch, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, San Diego, tried to ask Ranga Dias's team for raw data from the experiment and submitted his own objection analysis to arXiv and Physica C in August 2021, with the title of "On the ac magnetic susceptibility of a room temperature superconductor: Anatomy of a probable scientific fraud
But in November 2021, the article was removed by Physica C and by arXiv in December. The reason is that it contains data that was published without the permission of the original team.
On November 29, Dias and another author posted their response to Hirsch's question on arXiv and published some of their raw data. Hirsch then submitted two new analytical papers based on these raw data and three in response to Dias' research work.
Figure | Science
ArXiv administrators rejected all five of Hirsch's articles and also deleted a paper by Dias and its collaborators for "inflammatory and unprofessional language."
Until February 2022, arXiv banned Jorge Hirsch from publishing new papers on the platform within 6 months, as well as revisions of previous papers, after removing the controversial papers.
Hirsch said the ban was "very unfair." "If I can't publish a paper, I can't work."
Hirsch himself even defended Dias's paper in an email to the arXiv administrator. "It makes the scientific argument that the scientific community should be allowed to judge on their merits, rather than being prevented from doing so by your arbitrary, self-righteous standards of etiquette."
For some other scientists, arXiv banning and deleting papers is tantamount to stifling scientific debate. Nigel Goldenfeld, a physicist at the University of California, San Diego, wrote in an email: "Scientists who care about this issue and have expertise in evaluating the arguments of both sides should be allowed to do so by accessing problematic preprinted copies." ”
But the managers at arXiv believe the decision has nothing to do with science. "Not a single paper was rejected because we didn't like the scientific content," said Ralph Wijers, a physicist at the University of Amsterdam and chairman of the board of directors of the preprint platform. They become vitriolous. ”
Introduced nearly 30 years ago, arXiv is the first major preprint repository and has become an important communication center for physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, mathematicians, and computer scientists. In recent years, preprint servers for specific disciplines and research areas have also sprung up.
The appeal of the preprint is obvious. Scientists can disseminate their findings more quickly, and articles submitted to the platform for preprint are usually published within a day or two of submission, allowing academic discussions on complex science in near real time. Young researchers can show funding agencies and hiring committees that they are increasing efficiency and contributing to the field while waiting for the draft to pass peer review. Publishing your own research on a preprint server also means that the results can be widely accessed, rather than having to pay for access.
While the screening process for manuscripts varies from preprint server to preprint server, a recent analysis of 44 preprint servers found that most preprint servers have quality control systems, with 75 percent of servers publicly providing information about their article review procedures and 32 percent of researchers participating in reviews of criteria such as article content relevance.
Figure | arXiv
However, not all submitted articles will be accepted by arXiv. Currently, an estimated 15,000 submissions of articles are accepted each month, and there are about 200 volunteer moderators reviewing submissions to ensure they cover legitimate scientific research of interest to the community. However, papers that appear unscientific or use "unprofessional" language may be rejected.
Steinn Sigurdsson, head of science at arXiv, said rejection is generally "rare" and can be only about 1 percent. Paul Fendley, a theoretical physicist at the University of Oxford and a member of the arXiv advisory board, said moderate screening helped ensure that the paper did not contain insults against other scientists. "If we allow these things, what's the difference between arXiv and Twitter?"
But there are also physicists who worry that managers will make arbitrary decisions. Brian Josephson, a physicist at the University of Cambridge, said the moderators "seemed too keen" to remove controversial papers, "and we don't know what their biases might be." ”
bibliography
https://www.science.org/content/article/preprint-server-removes-inflammatory-papers-superconductor-controversy
This article is reproduced from the academic headline (ID: SciTouTiao) with permission, if you need to reprint it for a second time, please contact the original author.