by Donatello Dolce
Introduction
How free is science today? How many researchers feel constrained by academic orthodoxy or online gatekeepers? In this post, I want to share a critical reflection on the state of scientific communication in the Internet era—especially through the lens of arXiv’s moderation policies—and why this matters for all of us who care about the integrity and future of science.
The Rise (and Risk) of Scientific Social Media
arXiv revolutionized how scientists share research, becoming one of the powerful tools of academic dissemination, especially in physics. But with great power comes great responsibility—and questions. What started as a grassroots scientific platform now plays a central gatekeeping role, despite lacking the scientific rigor of peer review.
In a digital world increasingly governed by opaque algorithms and centralized authority, is arXiv still living up to its mission of open, democratic scientific exchange?
Scientific Censorship in the Digital Age
Censorship today doesn’t come with torches and stakes—it comes silently. A reclassified paper. A shadowban. A missing announcement from the daily list. Researchers with unconventional but well-supported ideas find themselves ignored, marginalized, or dismissed not by rebuttal, but by silence.
In my own experience—and echoed by so many others including Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson—arXiv’s moderation system has on several occasions overruled peer-reviewed publications, relegating them to “general physics” (gen-ph), a label that effectively buries them from their intended audience, or complete rejection.
Peer Review vs. Platform Moderation
Scientific journals, for all their flaws, still offer the last structured safeguard for scientific method. Peer reviewers spend months analyzing a paper giving a feedback on the scientific merit. arXiv moderators take days, sometimes hours—without scientific justification, feedback, or even identity disclosure. Worse still, published journal articles aren’t immune from reclassification.
How can a platform claim to promote open science while systematically discrediting verified publications?
The Danger of Reclassification
Being reclassified to gen-ph is worse than being rejected—it’s like being erased. These papers vanish from the targeted audience, discussions, and search feeds. In practice, this has a chilling effect: young researchers self-censor, fearing to jeopardize their careers.
It’s no wonder that, despite thousands of papers published yearly, the field of theoretical physics is stagnant of new ideas. Truly disruptive ideas risk being buried in “junk drawers.”
What’s at Stake?
The future of science depends on the ability to challenge, to provoke, and to question. Galileo once wrote:
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
That humility is fading in a system that promotes conformity over curiosity. And arXiv, as it stands, is responsible entrenching that system rather than liberating it.
A Modest Proposal
I propose arXiv automatically accept and classify papers already peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals, respecting the classifications assigned by journal editors. This would:
- Prevent unnecessary moderation.
- Respect the work of journal reviewers.
- Reduce bias against controversial but rigorous ideas.
Let’s make room again for visionary science, not just safe science.
Let’s Talk
Have you had similar experiences with scientific publishing or moderation? Do you think platforms like arXiv are helping or hindering science?
Join the conversation on the FQxI Forum or leave a comment below.
Lascia un commento