Open-Access Physics Journal Accommodates Authors Blacklisted from arXiv

Progress in Physics

Dark matter.

Progress in Physics is an open-access journal that publishes articles unsuitable for mainstream physics journals. Among other roles, it provides desperate authors, some of whom have been blacklisted from arXiv, a place to publish their work.

At least this journal — which should not be confused with the respected journals Progress of Theoretical Physics and Reports on Progress in Physics — does not spam. That’s probably why I only heard about it recently.

I learned about the journal from a physics researcher whose colleague furtively submitted a co-authored manuscript to the journal, a submission that the co-authors were unaware of until it was accepted by the journal, an acceptance that happened fast and without the journal asking for any revisions.

My correspondent expressed these concerns about the journal:

  1. The journal has been in press for nearly 10 years, and does not appear to have any impact factor to speak of.
  2. The journal’s name bears a striking resemblance to a highly-reputable journal Reports on Progress in Physics, with a very respectable following and impact factor, so I felt an attempt at name recognition was at play.
  3. The journal bills itself as being peer-reviewed; however, the editor who notified us of our article’s acceptance said that his “associate editor” read it and had positive things to say, and thus accepted it.  There were no content-based comments, suggestions, or any sort of input on what should be done, aside from basic formatting, to ensure quality in their journal.
  4. The article was accepted a mere three (3) days after being submitted for review.  This seems exceedingly fast to me.
  5. There are submission/publication charges (clearly listed on their website), that allow it to be open-access.
  6. Upon reading multiple articles, I found that, overall, there are a few number of authors who publish there, but publish there often, rather than several authors who publish there sporadically.
  7. These authors often (but not always) have no institutional affiliation, they merely list their home address and personal (not professional) email and contact info (@yahoo.com).
  8. The required the manuscript to be submitted in LaTex format, which allowed them to made modifications, and introduced multiple errors in our manuscript between what was submitted and what they sent back.
  9. I won’t lend credibility to Wikipedia as a source of info, but I was pretty surprised in how much it read like an indictment.  Feel free to check it out for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_in_Physics

I agree. I’ve added this journal to my list in hopes that I can warn others to avoid it. Even the Wikipedia article about the journal calls it an “alternative science journal.” The encyclopedia also says “The journal has published papers by several authors, who, along with some of the editors, claim to have been blacklisted by the Cornell University arXiv as proponents of fringe scientific theories.”

Apparently arXiv does its peer review at the researcher level, rather than at the article level.

Chromium_spectrum_visible

The visible light portion of the chromium spectrum.

This Southern Methodist University website, http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/websites.html, criticizes the journal, saying

Featuring, among other gems, A New Form of Matter — Unmatter, Composed of Particles and Anti-Particles by Florentin Smarandache, one of the “journal’s” associate editors, tenured professor of mathematics at the University of New Mexico Gallup campus, and professional crackpot.

The internet has given new life to far-fetched scientific theories, and open-access journals like Progress in Physics gild these ideas with a counterfeit imprimatur of science.

I strongly recommend that all honest researchers avoid submitting their work to this highly questionable journal.

16 Responses to Open-Access Physics Journal Accommodates Authors Blacklisted from arXiv

  1. herr doktor bimler says:

    Smarandache! I came across him and his acolytes while inquiring into the sort of author who publishes at identity-stolen journals. I didn’t realise that his “Neutrosophic” movement had its own journal.

    • Marco says:

      It gets even funnier if you go to his homepage (no, I am not linking – kids may be reading this, too), which has the following hilarious comment “This hypothesis was partially validated on September 22, 2011, when researchers at CERN experimentally proved that the muon neutrino particles travel with a speed greater than the speed of light.”

      It seems he is more than 2 years behind in updating his homepage, considering that OPERA has identified and reported several equipment failures that led to this anomalous result.

  2. herr doktor bimler says:

    *Anything* involving Smarandache and the grandiose self-monument of Neutrosophy is bound to end in hilarity. He prefers to write about himself in third-person, after all. In the pre-wordprocessing era, I imagine that he preferred to write in purple ink.

    • ArXiv not! says:

      The tragedy is this. Their work – rubbish, unfactual, incomprehensive, inaccurate, unscientific and possibly (in some cases) even fraudulent – will most likely score more hits – and thus citations – than if they were to publish in a regular STM journal. So, this mad incentive, also most likely with financial support by their equally ignorant institutes and ministries of education – consiting of technocrats who think that a flashy website is equivalent to a good publisher – is going to push more towards the “predators”. Because, what have they got to loose, except for a little spoof here and there on a blog or two?

  3. wkdawson says:

    Occasionally, I’ve certainly come across (and had to read) some hopelessly opaque essays at arXiv from people whose ideas are quite probably wrong. It seems like it would be an “accomplishment” indicative of incredible skill to be banned from there.

    • Apparently there is a blacklist, and even a website — http://archivefreedom.org/casehistories.htm
      — devoted to the cause of ArXiv personae non grata. That site is incomplete, however, and omits the egregiously inventive Mohamed El Naschie whose case is covered in a blog devoted to documenting his activities.

      • Lee Rudolph says:

        Goodness gracious. El Naschie turns out to have been the editor in chief of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals way back in 1998, when Volume 9, Issues 4 and 5, were devoted to Knot Theory and Its Applications: Expository Articles on Current Research and guest- edited by C. Adams. I’d never bothered to look at that journal before today, but had always wondered why two French friends of mine (a sometime collaborator of mine, and a doctoral student of his whose thesis was based on other work of mine) had published a (very nice) survey of (mostly) my work there, given that knot theory generally (and certainly my work and theirs) has very little to do with chaos, solitons, or fractals. (I would have said that there was no relation at all, but one of the articles, Chaotic knots and wild dynamics, by Robert W. Ghrist, reminds me that indeed there is, and an interesting one, at that. Ghrist is a serious mathematical heavyweight.)

        Now I see that El Naschie (according to his editorial) had apparently come across Adams’s excellent textbook on knot theory, and decided to invite Adams to put together a special issue. The articles all are serious and by 25 serious mathematicians, almost all of whom I’ve heard of (and most of whom I know, including one who likes to remind me whenever we run into each other that he was my last teaching assistant before I ended up in the hell of No-Teaching-Assistant-Land from which I finally retired).

        So at least (probably, at most) once, El Naschie’s egregious inventiveness had good results. (But I’m betting that, to the extent the articles in that issue have been read, it’s been in the versions on the ArXiv.)

      • Nils says:

        Here’s an interesting read on the El Naschie vs Nature case:
        http://www.nature.com/news/2012/120706/extref/456432a-s1.doc

      • Lee Rudolph says:

        Nils, thank you for that link. I’m only 6 pages into the 91 page document, and don’t swear I’ll finish it, though it’s very educational. However, I cannot resist quoting, with added emphasis, the beginning of the 18th paragraph of Mrs. Justice Sharp’s Approved Judgment. (Claimant is El Naschie.)

        18. The content of the Claimant’s hearsay witness statements however raised other issues. It would not have been proportionate to deal with them individually but in general terms they included a great deal of material which was irrelevant or which was of limited, if any assistance in determining the issues in the action. Included in their number for example was one from someone who read about this litigation on the internet, and thought it would be helpful to offer his opinions on the matters the court had to decide.

        Ah, yes.

  4. […] no problem:” Progress in Physics is perfectly happy to publish authors who have been banned from arXiv, says Jeffrey […]

  5. Mr. Newbie says:

    Hi Jeffrey,

    Progress in Physics is just a small part of the physics-crackpot-publishing circle. The story of “amateur physicist gets rejected from all journals so forms his own” seems to be a long one. I can’t vouch for the peer-review systems at these journals—maybe they send incoming crank papers to other cranks for legitimate, if ineffective, review—but the result is that a whole stable of unaffiliated journals that publish one another’s authors over and over.

    However, I’ve never viewed this as an “open access” problem or a matter of corruption. The world of readers/librarian/tenure-review-committees is not getting fooled by these journals. (Occasionally rarely you see a serious (if minor) article from an inexperienced author, often in a developing country, and I presume these people have been “fooled” by the journal title and presentation.) I don’t think they’re owned by predatory moneymaking machines, and (unlike the Benthams and such of the world) I don’t worry about their broader effects on science publishing. Just a subculture.

    However, if you’re interested, look into:

    Physics Essays (longstanding and, IMO, no illusions about what they’re doing)
    Galilean Electrodynamics
    Hadronic Journal
    Algebras, Groups and Geometries
    Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie
    Journal of Cosmology

    • Thank you — this is a helpful comment. I do have the Journal of Cosmology on my list.
      Don’t you think it’s at least a small problem when academic indexes include articles from these journals in their databases?

    • The Journal of Cosmology (and its semi-attached website) have contributed greatly to the cause of hilarity over the years, with their panspermia and Hydro-Gravitational-Dynamics creationism, and their use of what appear to be Christian Psychedelia album covers to illustrate their neologasms of deeply-meaningful word coinage. Not to mention their vendetta against P Z Myers.
      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology

  6. ishi crew says:

    I’m somewhat a fan of what i call ‘dissident science’; also there may be some overlap between what is ‘wack’ and what isn’t. (Ramanujan used to collect proofs of fermats last theorem i heard;i keep track a bit of quantum hidden variable theories (some of them do get discussed in peer reviewed literature) and disproofs of Cantor’s diagonalization argument).

    . Chaos solitons and fractals did publish many respected scientists over the years, though some of this may be ‘resume padding’—some of them just seem to try to publish in as many places as they can, though sometimes also they are trying to get their point of view noticed by a large audience.
    (as an aside I took a class with Lee Rudolph long ago on ‘rhyme and reason, partial patterns in math and poetry’).

    I think G t Hooft (noble in physics) is on the editorial board of Physics Essays (i dont know why and bet he doesnt read much of it) , and some I believe legitimate people publish there, often because they have some speculative or marginal ideas which may not be what they get paid to do as sceintists (ie they wont be published in standard journals—Newton believed in alchemy, and R Laughlin (noble in physics) i thinks doesn’t believe in the big bang, etc.) A few papers are basically philosophical (and i think could be put in a philo science journal).

    Another somewhat weird journal seems to be Electronic J of Theoretical Physics; Kleinart is an editor and from what I know is fairly famous and respected; other people on the board seem to have credentials though I think some are considered cranks (eg M Consoli); I have read stuff by Kitto (also on the board) and actually though a PhD thesis looks more like something in Scientific American dressed up with equations. His thesis advisor has a theory considered discredited.

    Apeirion is another great ‘wack’ journal (loaded with proofs that Einstein was wrong, but there are ocassionaly some valid points in there, related to issues of ‘conventionalism’ (Poincare)’, ). .

    There are also many papers on arxiv despite some sort of blacklisting process by people with academic jobs with unonventinal ideas (global warming deniers; even Luc Montaigner (AIDS fame) has one on homeopathy with a theoretical physicist who i think is considered somewhat legit—publishes in well known journals.I also think ocassionaly wack theories basically are poorly formalized so after many years they get reconfigured and are seen as either possible or possibly erven true (and sometimes the original idea is not credited). Feigenbaum’s paper on chaos was rejected at first.

  7. An author being blacklisted or a work being given a hard time at arXiv does not mean it is necessarily a bad work. For example every paper I have tried to submit to arXiv has resulted in a conference talk or at least a poster at the conferences of the American Physical Society. So far the only one allowed on arXiv was judged worthy of a poster session by APS, while the ones that get a hard time on arXiv have gotten full talks. It is a bit more complicated than “blacklisted” by arXiv ==> bad science/bad scientist.

    Don’t take my word for it. Check out this Nature article on some of the mechanics of their automated filtering and the pitfalls of it. as well as one confirmed instance of the moderators trying very hard to find an excuse to not publish a particular paper.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v508/n7494/full/508044a.html

  8. Gaëtan Landry says:

    I’ll point out the that Progres in Physics website (http://www.ptep-online.com/) hijacks the abbreviation PETP, which is usually reserved for Progress of Theoretical & Experimental Physics (http://ptep.oxfordjournals.org/)

Leave a Reply -- All comments are subject to moderation, including removal.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: