Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,873 answers , 20,701 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

What should be the standard/level of the Reviews section of PhysicsOverflow?

+ 1 like - 0 dislike
297 views

The short answer I think is that the reviews section should be research-level.

But as some of the recent discussions have shown, that there are additional points to clarify:

  1. What are acceptable sources of submissions apart from the ArXiv?
  2. Under what conditions do we reject  reject a submission creation request?
  3. What makes submissions potentially closable (from a technical point of view they are just questions)?
  4. Should author summaries be more detailled than the ArXiv abstract (which could for example be added when the submission is created by default) ?
  5. Concerning the reviews, we already said that "partial reviews" are welcome on PhysicsOverflow, but are there any standards they should comply with?

The list might be incomplete, so please feel free to add in new points.

This post is bey no means intended to overbureaucratize PhysicsOverflow, but it should help to keep up the level of the Reviews section too, which seem a bit less straight forward than for the Q&A section.

To keep things ordered and easily migratable into the FAQ as soon as things are settled (and also for and also to allow for bijunique voting), each point should get adressed and discussed in a separate answer.

asked Jul 22, 2014 in Discussion by Dilaton (4,295 points) [ revision history ]
recategorized Jul 26, 2014 by dimension10

5 Answers

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

To the first point, I consider it to be ridiculous to discriminate based on the source of the submission. You could have a perfectly legitimate paper, but you make the mistake (yes, mistake, ViXrA was made with good intentions, but has detoriated into a crackpot repository) of submitting it to ViXrA. So does that mean that PhysicsOverflow should reject the submission, just because it is also available on ViXrA? I don't think so.

Any source for submissions should be acceptable, judge the paper based on its content, not its source.  

answered Jul 23, 2014 by dimension10 (1,950 points) [ revision history ]
+ 2 like - 0 dislike

To the second point, I think that this should be our accept/decline policy for submissions (click for larger version):

It's completely transparent and objective, and filters out the worst of the crackpot papers, without censoring any legitimate physics at all.

answered Jul 24, 2014 by dimension10 (1,950 points) [ revision history ]
edited Jul 26, 2014 by dimension10
Most voted comments show all comments

@RonMaimon But how are we supposed to assess the honesty of a submission? Go to the author's house and do a lie detector test? Of course there is a "community of people who will read the reviews" for everything - the group of people who will click on the submission list + the group of people who will find it from a search engine or something + the group of people who randomly entered the submission ID into the URL bar.

I do understand the fear that in future, the policy may be misused, but I think the policy is quite clear and objective. I can't really comprehend exactly what you're saying, could you provide an example of an "interesting model without mathematical or experimental justification"?

I gave the example: a random cellular automaton model usually has zero mathematical or physical or experimental justification. But they are good to study, because they can give insight into physical models eventually, as for example, the lattice fluid model eventually got a mathematical justification.

@RonMaimon That already passes the first criterion, it isn't in conflict with established physics.

@VladimirKalitvianski Iff it's physically justified, it would also be either mathematically or experimentally justified.

@RonMaimon The veto can be used frivolously. How about the vetoer having to pay a ransom of 40 rep, or something?

I am fine with relaxing the policy later on.

Most recent comments show all comments

@Dilaton No, I meant the person who vetoes the rejection. And by "pay" I mean lose reputation points. But that would mean the person becomes less reputable because he felt that something is not crackpot, so no, I take that back.

Vetoes can be used frivolously, I prefer the idea of dropping the policy once we graduate from Reviews I.

Ok...

Yes, I hope too that as soon as a large enough good crowd is here (maybe we should not graduate before this happens ...?), things will become easier and that the minimal standard outlined in the flowchart will be agreed upon by the majority of people without speaking (and the crackpots and cranks in a negligible minority), such that it will no longer have to be explicitely demanded and written down...

But if we give a wrong, unprofessional, rather crackpotty and weird impression now, there will never by any good large enough crowd here ...

Also, I do not really fundamentally disagree with @RonMaimon, as I think we have both seen enough bad stuff happening and things turning to the dark side elsewhere, to know that it is important to avoid such things here by all means ...

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

I think the only standard we need is that there is a significant body of legible text which is on topic for the forum, meaning about physics or related mathematics, or related methods from other fields, or borrowing from physics into other fields.

If you have an open review, anyone can get a quick review of material, with pointers toward related literature. Any attempt to keep some people out (other than presenting significant legible on-topic original text) will create a political struggle for the keys to the forum, and the result will be that some group of censorious editors will succeed in shutting up a bunch of other people, using political lables.

There is no need for a paper to have any pedigree, in my opinion. Crank papers are the least of our concern, they do no harm, as they are downvoted immediately, and require no special attention afterwards.

answered Jul 23, 2014 by Ron Maimon (7,535 points) [ no revision ]

You expressed the concern that "nobody is ominscient" somewhere, which I take as "crackpottery is subjective". I agree with that, but the worst of crackpottery is quite objective. See my answer to the second point for a criterion I consider quite objective.

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

To point 3, I think that submissions shouldn't generally be closed, for now at least. Closing a submission just prevents reviews, that's it. Reviews I is only a temporary phase, of course, so what we should really think about is the reviews section after graduation.

If PhysicsOverflow ever decides that not all ArXiV physics papers are on-topic for PhysicsOverflow, then we could "close" bot-submitted submissions (if they have interesting reviews, or else we could just delete them, they were submitted by a bot, after all). But for now, no.

answered Jul 26, 2014 by dimension10 (1,950 points) [ no revision ]
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

To point 4, yes of course they should!

I mean, it should be allowed for users to just copy the abstract (as long as it's not in violation of some copyright), but we should not grant authorship based on that. Anybody can copy the abstract, or paraphrase it, but that doesn't mean that they wrote the paper.

answered Jul 26, 2014 by dimension10 (1,950 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsO$\varnothing$erflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...