Archive for arXiv

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Qeios and the Nature of a Journal

Posted in Open Access with tags , , , on December 15, 2024 by telescoper

Last week I encountered, for the first time, a website called Qeios.com. This is a platform that does peer review of preprints and then posts those approved with Open Access. It also issues a DOI for approved articles. Qeios is also a member of Crossref so presumably the metadata for these articles is deposited there too.

You might think this is the same as what the Open Journal of Astrophysics does, but it is a bit different. For one thing, it is not an arXiv overlay journal so the preprints actually appear on the Qeios platform, though I suppose there’s nothing to stop authors posting on arXiv either before or after Qeios. Since most astrophysicists find their research on arXiv, the overlay concept seems more efficient than the Qeios one.

Anyway, my attention was drawn to Qeios by an astrophysicist who had been asked to review an article for Qeios that is already under consideration by OJAp. In our For Authors page there is this:

No paper should be submitted to The Open Journal of Astrophysics that is already published elsewhere or is being considered for publication by another journal.

This rule is adopted by many journals and has in the past led to authors being banned for breaking it. Apart from anything else it means that the community is not bombarded with multiple review requests for the same paper (as in the case above). There is an issue of research misconduct, the definition of which varies from one institution to another. For reference here is what it says in Maynooth University’s Research Integrity Policy statement:

Publication of multiplier papers based on the same set(s) or sub-set(s) of data is not acceptable, except where there is full cross-referencing within the papers. An author who submits substantially similar work to more than one publisher must disclose this to the publishers at the time of submission.

The document also specifically refers to “artificially proliferating publications” as an example of research misconduct. Authors whose papers do end up in multiple journals could thus find themselves in very hot water with their employers as a consequence.

Getting back to the specifics of Qeios and OJAp, however, there two questions about whether this rule applicable in this situation. One is that the preprint may have been submitted to Qeios after submission to OJAp, which means the rule as written is not violated. Authors of papers published by OJAp retain full copyright of their work so we can’t control what they do after publication, but if they try to publish it again in another journal they will fall foul of the rule there.

The other is whether Qeios counts as a “another journal” in the first place. Instead of going into the definition of what a journal is, I’ll refer you to an old post of mine in which I wrote this:

I’d say that, at least in my discipline, traditional journals are simply no longer necessary for communicating scientific research. I find all the  papers I need to do my research on the arXiv and most of my colleagues do the same. We simply don’t need old-fashioned journals anymore.  Yet we keep paying for them. It’s time for those of us who believe that  we should spend as much of our funding as we can on research instead of throwing it away on expensive and outdated methods of publication to put an end to this absurd system. We academics need to get the academic publishing industry off our backs.

The point that I have made many times is that the only thing that journals do of any importance is to organize peer-review. The publishing side of the business is simply unnecessary. Journals do not add value to an article, they just add cost. The one thing they do – peer review – is not done by them but by members of the academic community.

There is a thread on Bluesky by Ethan Vishniac (Editor-in-Chief of the Astrophysical Journal) about Qeios. There are six parts so please bear with me if I include them all to show context:

This thread is for authors of scientific papers, and particularly astronomers. I struggled a bit with how explicit I had to be, but I think including a name is important. We (meaning all the major journals) have rules against submitting a manuscript to more than one journal at a time. 1/6

— Ethan Vishniac (@ethan-vishniac.bsky.social) 2024-12-06T21:27:57.368Z

People who ignore this rule can find themselves banned from submitting papers for years. Recently we had a case where a potential referee noted that he had just been asked to review the same paper by someone else. 2/6

— Ethan Vishniac (@ethan-vishniac.bsky.social) 2024-12-06T21:27:57.369Z

I wrote the author, who was startled and explained that he had been asked to allow his preprint to be posted at Qeios.com and that he had agreed – the issue of peer review was never raised and posting a preprint is not an ethical violation. It’s a normal part of the process. 3/6

— Ethan Vishniac (@ethan-vishniac.bsky.social) 2024-12-06T21:27:57.370Z

He cc'd me the emails and I would have read it the same way. Qeios.com takes the position that they are not a journal, but a website that vets papers through peer review. The AAS journals (and as far as I know, all other professional journals) does not regard this as a meaningful distinction. 4/6

— Ethan Vishniac (@ethan-vishniac.bsky.social) 2024-12-06T21:27:57.371Z


We ban this kind of simultaneous submission in order to avoid over-burdening the community with review requests and because we do not want to encourage people to shop for a referee who will not give significant feedback. The task of reviewing a paper is time-consuming but important service. 5/6

— Ethan Vishniac (@ethan-vishniac.bsky.social) 2024-12-06T21:27:57.372Z

There is no point in participating in a process which makes this work meaningless. TDLR submit to the AAS journals, or submit to Qeios.com , or any other journal of your choice, but remember that it is a choice. Also, you can post to the ArXiv as well. It's fine. 6/6

— Ethan Vishniac (@ethan-vishniac.bsky.social) 2024-12-06T21:27:57.373Z

This thread repeats much of what I’ve said already, but I’d like to draw your attention to the 4th of these messages, which contains

Qeios.com takes the position that they are not a journal, but a website that vets papers through peer review. The AAS journals (and as far as I know, all other professional journals) does not regard this as a meaningful distinction.

I’m not sure what a journal actually is, as I think it is an outmoded concept, but I agree with Ethan Vishniac that to all intents and purposes Qeios is a journal. It has an ISSN that says as much too. On the other hand, this quote seems to me to contain a tacit acceptance that the only thing that defines a journal is that it vets papers by peer review, which is the point I made above.

16 Comments »

“Optimized” Beer Glass Shapes

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on October 21, 2024 by telescoper

I couldn’t resist sharing a piece of fundamental research I found in an article on the arXiv withthe abstract:

This paper addresses the problem of determining the optimum shape for a beer glass that minimizes the heat transfer while the liquid is consumed, thereby keeping it cold for as long as possible. The proposed solution avoids the use of insulating materials. The glass is modeled as a body of revolution generated by a smooth curve, constructed from a material with negligible thermal resistance, but insulated at the base. The ordinary differential equation describing the problem is derived from the first law of Thermodynamics applied to a control volume encompassing the liquid. This is an inverse optimization problem, aiming to find the shape of the glass (represented by curve S) that minimizes the heat transfer rate. In contrast, the direct problem aims to determine the heat transfer rate for a given geometry. The solution obtained here is analytic, and the resulting function describing the relation between height ans radius of the glass, is in closed form, providing a family of optimal glass shapes that can be manufactured by conventional methods. Special attention is payed to the dimensions and the capacity of the resulting shapes.

arXiv:2410.12043v1

The author’s favourite shape is this:

Of course those of us who are used to proper beer don’t really want it to be cold in the first place, but I hope this doesn’t sound bitter. My main reservation about the conclusion of the paper is that it doesn’t seem to take into account how easy it is to drink from the glass. In that respect, I’m not convinced by the shape above!

2 Comments »

The trouble with arXiv

Posted in Biographical, Open Access with tags , , , , on October 17, 2024 by telescoper

We’re now publishing papers at a steady rate at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. This is probably not obvious to outsiders, but our platform actually consists of two different sites, one handling submissions and the other dealing with publishing those papers accepted. Although we have a large (and still expanding) team of volunteer Editors to deal with the former, as Managing Editor I am the only person with the keys to the publishing side of things. This part of the process has been simplified enormously after the automation introduced earlier this year but it still takes some time to do, as I have to check the overlay and metadata before pressing the button to deposit everything with Crossref and make the overlay live. I also announce each paper on social media. This usually takes around 15 minutes per paper, give or take.

Now that I’ve returned to full teaching duties at Maynooth University, I’ve developed a routine to deal with this activity. During workdays I usually wake around 7am, make some coffee, and then check the day’s arXiv mailing to see if any of our accepted papers have been announced. If any have, I do the honours while I have my coffee, and then proceed to shower and breakfast (including Coffee no. 2); if none have, I go straight to shower and breakfast. I’ve been following this routine for quite a while now.

In the last couple of weeks, however, I have noticed quite often when I try to look up newly-announced papers on arXiv that the connection times out with a message saying ‘rate exceeded’. If that happens I just wait a while and try again. It’s not a very serious issue but it does slow down the process.

Well, today I found out the reason via a message on Mastodon. The loading errors at arXiv are caused by people doing many simultaneous downloads in attempts to scrape all the content from arXiv as soon as it is announced. This is almost certainly to provide material for Large Language Models, such as ChatGPT, which are essentially Automated Plagiarism Engines. I propose the acronym APE for the kind of person who engages in this sort of activity.

This is a very tedious development and I hope arXiv can find a way of putting a stop to it without inconveniencing its authentic users. I suggest that the people managing arXiv identify the culprits and send the boys round.

2 Comments »

Euclid Paper Day!

Posted in Barcelona, Euclid, Maynooth, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , , , on May 24, 2024 by telescoper

This morning’s arXiv update brought the expected deluge of preprints from Euclid. You can find details of all fifteen of the new articles here. Ten of them relate to the Early Release Observations of which five were announced yesterday and five last November. These are essentially byproducts of the testing and calibration phase of the Euclid mission rather than the main cosmological survey. ESA is making a series of short videos about these results which I will share on here from time to time.

Of more direct relevance to cosmologists such as myself are the following five reference papers:

The overview paper, led by Yannick Mellier (Euclid Consortium Lead), giving a general description of the mission capabilities and science goals, will be the main reference paper and just about every active member of the Euclid Consortium is on the author list (including myself). That’s over a thousand people, not quite at the level of the Large Hadron Collider but getting there. I do think we need to find a better way of giving credit to work in large collaborations than through authorship, but until someone comes up with a workable scheme, and people responsible for hiring researchers adopt it, we’re stuck with what we’ve got. At least I can say that I’ve read that paper (which is 94 pages long, including the author list)

Papers II-IV are technical articles relating to Euclid’s instruments and their calibration, which will also be important references for the survey part of the Euclid mission. Paper V is about the Flagship simulations and the mock catalogues produced therefrom; I discussed these a while ago here. It is led by Francisco Castander of Institut de Ciencies de l’Espai, who organized the meeting I attended recently here in Barcelona.

These papers now now be peer-reviewed and, assuming they are accepted, published in a special issue of Astronomy & Astrophysics (A&A).

Leave a comment »

Open Access in Ecology

Posted in Open Access with tags , , , , on May 6, 2024 by telescoper

My attention was drawn yesterday to the following blog post about Open Access in the field of ecology. I recommend you read it (and the comments, some of which are excellent).

The state of academic publishing in 3 graphs, 6 trends, and 4 thoughts

I will add a few comments of my own here.

First, whenever I read an article like this from a discipline different from my own it makes me not only feel grateful that we have arXiv but also wonder why so many fields don’t have the equivalent. On the other hand, there is EarthArxiv, but it doesn’t seem to have very many papers on it.

Second, I agree with the author of the post that far too many papers are being published. That is driven by the absurdity of a system that no longer regards the journal article as a means of disseminating scientific results but instead as a kind of epaulette to give status to the author. I also agree that scientists have largely got themselves to blame for this ridiculous situation.

Third, I disagree most strongly with this statement:

First, pipe dreaming academics who believed in the mirage of “Diamond OA” (nobody pays and it is free to publish). Guess what – publishing a paper costs money – $500-$2000 depending on how much it is subsidized by volunteer scientists. 

This is nonsense. It does not cost anything like $500-$2000 dollars to publish a paper. Of course it does cost something, but the true amount is trivial – tens of dollars, rather than hundreds or thousands – and can easily be absorbed. The entire annual running costs of OJAp are less than the typical Article Processing Charge for a single paper in a “prestigious” journal. Most money being paid in the form of APC goes directly into profit for the publishers, and the rest is largely wasted on administrative overhead. The Open Journal of Astrophysics is a Diamond Open Access journal, not a mirage. It may be a no-frills service, but it’s a reality. Why doesn’t someone set up an overlay journal on EarthArXiv?

The author of this blog post also spectacularly misses the point with “depending on how much it is subsidized by volunteer scientists”. Volunteer scientists are already subsidizing the profits of profit-making publishers! One of the commenters on the blog post has it right:

On Diamond OA and who pays; we’re already paying the big publishers with both our time and our money to publish in / review for / edit for their journals. Perhaps if we redirected that time to Diamond OA titles things would be somewhat different.

A final comment, only tangentially related to this post, is that I have been (pleasantly) surprised by the extent to which early career researchers have embraced the concept of the Open Journal of Astrophysics when you might have thought that they had more to lose by not publishing in mainstream journals rather than us oldies who don’t care any more. The explanation seems to be that younger people seem to see the absurdity and obvious unsustainability of the current publishing environment more easily than those who have put up with it for decades already.

6 Comments »

Introducing alphaXiv

Posted in Open Access with tags , on March 9, 2024 by telescoper

I’ve been busy all day so just have time to mention an interesting new development to do with arXiv. There is a new site called alphaXiv, which is a forum for anyone to comment line-by-line on arXiv papers. It also allows you to “get responses directly from authors of the paper or from established research teams from Stanford and Harvard”, which seems to imply that authors can’t be from established research teams unless they are from Stanford or Harvard!

Anyway, you can try alphaXiv here.

I think this is a great idea in principle; it will be fascinating to see how it works out in practice. My main reservation stems from (i) it seems that there is no moderation of comments and (ii) anonymous comments are allowed; there is therefore a significant danger of abusive behaviour as is often the case on, e.g., Reddit.

I’d welcome reactions via the comments box below from anyone who has tried this already or who has thoughts about it generally!

2 Comments »

ArXiv Accessibility

Posted in Open Access with tags , , , , on February 19, 2024 by telescoper

Just over a year ago I did a post about the need to make arXiv more accessible, particularly for readers with some form of visual impairment. Although I missed it at the time, there was an announcement from arXiv in December 2023 that new papers (by which is meant submitted after 1st December 2023) will be available as HTML as well as PDF format. This has been in development for some time, actually, and HTML versions have been available from arXiv labs by changing the address of a paper from, for example, “https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.15014v3” to “https://ar5iv.org/abs/2111.15014v3“. The latter produces this HTML version of one of the papers we have published at the Open Journal of Astrophysics:

As you can see, it works pretty well for this example.

Naturally I tried out the new “beta” release of the HTML generator, which you can now find on the right-hand panel of the abstract page alongside the PDF download instead of fiddling around with the URL. Here is an example of one of our papers on which it works well:

Here it is on another of our OJAp papers which, as you can see, does not work:

You can see the reason for the failure, which is that the LaTex used to generate the paper contains a package the HTML generator does not know about. One of the difficulties for arXiv is that new packages are always being developed and it is hard to keep up. I’m told that on average arXiv achieves ~75% successful conversions (and 97% partial success), but the articles from January 2024 (which contain more new packages) convert with a success rate of only 62%. It’s far from perfect, but it will improve -especially if authors follow the advice on best practice produced by arXiv; I actually think authors have a responsibility to help arXiv as much as possible in this regard.

This all reminds me of past experiences I’ve had teaching theoretical physics to blind and partially-sighted students. Years ago this used to involve making Braille copies of notes, but there are now various bits of software to help such people manage LaTeX both for creating and reading documents. In particular there are programs that can read Latex documents (including formulae and equations) which means that if a lecturer can supply LaTeX source version of their notes, the student can hear them spoken out loud as well as make their own annotations/corrections. While HTML may well be better for some fields, I do wonder if physicists and other people in disciplines that make heavy use of mathematics might prefer to use the LaTeX source code which is already downloadable from arXiv?

Leave a comment »

Three New Publications at the Open Journal of Astrophysics

Posted in OJAp Papers, Open Access, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 20, 2024 by telescoper

As promised yesterday, it’s time for a roundup of the week’s business at the  Open Journal of Astrophysics. This past week we have published three papers, taking  the count in Volume 7 (2024) up to 4 and the total published by OJAp up to 119. There are quite a few more ready to go as people return from the Christmas break.

In chronological order, the three papers published this week, with their overlays, are as follows. You can click on the images of the overlays to make them larger should you wish to do so.

First one up is “Prospects for studying the mass and gas in protoclusters with future CMB observations” by  Anna Gardner and Eric Baxter (Hawaii, USA), Srinivasan Raghunathan (NCSA, USA), Weiguang Cui (Edinburgh, UK), and Daniel Ceverino (Madrid, Spain). This paper, published on 17th January 2024, uses realistic hydrodynamical simulations to probe the ability of CMB Stage 4-like (CMB-S4) experiments to detect and characterize protoclusters via gravitational lensing and the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect. This paper is in the category of Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics.

Here is a screen grab of the overlay, which includes the abstract:

 

You can find the officially accepted version of the paper on the arXiv here.

The second paper to announce is “SDSS J125417.98+274004.6: An X-ray Detected Minor Merger Dual AGN” and is by Marko Mićić, Brenna Wells, Olivia Holmes, and Jimmy Irwin (all of the University of Alabama, USA).  This presents the discovery of a dual AGN in a merger between the galaxy SDSS J125417.98+274004.6 and dwarf satellite, studied using X-ray observations from the Chandra satellite. The paper was also published on 18th January 2024 in the category Astrophysics of Galaxies . You can see the overlay here:

 

The accepted version of this paper can be found on the arXiv here.

The last paper of this batch is  entitled “Population III star formation: multiple gas phases prevent the use of an equation of state at high densities” and the authors are:  Lewis Prole (Maynooth, Ireland), Paul Clark (Cardiff, UK), Felix Priestley (Cardiff, UK), Simon Glover (Heidelberg, Germany) and John Regan (Maynooth, Ireland). This paper, which presents a comparison of results obtained using chemical networks and a simpler equation-of-state approach for primordial star formation (showing the limitations of the latter) was published on 19th January 2024 and also in the folder marked Astrophysics of Galaxies.

Here is the overlay:

 

You can find the full text for this one on the arXiv here.

And that concludes the update. There’ll be more next week!

 

Leave a comment »

Two New Publications at the Open Journal of Astrophysics

Posted in OJAp Papers, Open Access, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on June 28, 2023 by telescoper

Time to catch up with a couple of recent publications at the Open Journal of Astrophysics.

The first paper was published on Friday 23rd June. It is the 21st in Volume 6 (2023) and the 86th in all.

The primary classification for this paper is Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics and its title is “CosmoPower-JAX: high-dimensional Bayesian inference with differentiable cosmological emulators”. The paper is about a new method, based on machine learning, to construct emulators for cosmological power spectra for the purpose of speeding up inference procedures. The software described in the paper is available here.

The authors are Davide Piras (of the University of Geneva, Switzerland) and Alessio Spurio Mancini (of the Mullard Space Sciences Laboratory, University College, London, UK)

Here is a screen grab of the overlay which includes the abstract:

You can click on the image of the overlay to make it larger should you wish to do so. You can find the officially accepted version of the paper on the arXiv here.

The second paper was published yesterday. It is the 22nd in Volume 6 (2023) and the 87th in all. Although 87 is an unlucky number for Australian cricketers – 13 short of a century – we’re still well on track to reach 100 papers by the end of the year.

Once again the primary classification for this paper is Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics. The title of this one is “The alignment of galaxies at the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation scale” by Dennis van Dompseler, Christos Georgiou & Nora Elisa Chisari all of Utrecht University, in The Netherlands.

Here is a screen grab of the overlay which includes the abstract:

 

You can click on the image of the overlay to make it larger should you wish to do so. You can find the officially accepted version of the paper on the arXiv here.

1 Comment »

To Preprint or not to Preprint?

Posted in Open Access with tags , , , , on May 16, 2023 by telescoper

In my capacity as managing editor of the Open Journal of Astrophysics I’ve received a few emails recently disagreeing with our policy of asking authors to submit their papers to the arXiv before submitting them to OJAp. Before reflecting on the wider issue, let me just point out that we don’t actually require papers to on the arXiv first. It is possible to submit a PDF directly to the Scholastica platform. We do however say in our For Authors page:

We strongly encourage authors to submit in the manner described above (i.e. on the arXiv first). We can receive and review papers submitted directly to this platform but since the final version must be on the arXiv in order to be published we feel it is far better to submit it there first in order to establish that it is on an appropriate topic for this journal.

Looking back over the 81 papers we have published, only a handful were submitted directly to the platform; the vast majority were put on the arXiv first.

This behaviour is in some sense a continuation of a very old practice in astrophysics. I can’t resist sharing this, one of the interesting astronomical curiosities I’ve acquired over the years, which is a preprint of the classic work of Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle in 1957 (a paper usually referred to as B2FH after the initials of its authors), which is such an important contribution to the literature that it has its own wikipedia page.

Younger readers will probably not realize that preprints were not always produced in the electronic form they are today. We all used to make large numbers of these and post them at great expense to (potentially) interested colleagues before publication in order to get comments. That was extremely useful because a paper could take over a year to be published after being refereed for a journal: that’s too long a timescale when a PhD or PDRA position is only a few years in duration. The first papers I was given to read as a new graduate student in 1985 were all preprints that were not published until well into the following year. In some cases I had more or less figured out what they were about by the time they appeared in a journal!

The B2FH paper was published in 1957 but the practice of circulating preprints persisted well into the 1990s. Usually these were produced by institutions with a distinctive design, logo, etc which gave them a professional look, which made it easier to distinguish `serious’ papers from crank material (which was also in circulation). This also suggested that some internal refereeing inside an institution had taken place before an “official” preprint was produced and this lending it an air of trustworthiness. Smaller institutions couldn’t afford all this, so were somewhat excluded from the preprint business.

With the arrival of the arXiv the practice of circulating hard copies of preprints in astrophysics gradually died out, to be replaced by ever-increasing numbers of electronic articles. The arXiv does have some gatekeeping – in the sense there are some controls on who can deposit a preprint there – but it is far easier to circulate a preprint now than it was.

It is still the case that big institutions and collaborations insist on quite strict internal refereeing before publishing a preprint – and some even insist on waiting for a paper to be accepted by a journal before adding it to the arXiv – but there’s no denying that among the wheat there is quite a lot of chaff, some of which attracts media coverage that it does not deserve. It must be admitted, however, that the same can be said of some papers that have passed peer review and appeared in high-profile journals! No system that is operated by human beings will ever be flawless, and peer review is no exception.

Nowadays, in astrophysics, the single most important point of access to scientific literature is through the arXiv, which is why the Open Journal of Astrophysics was set up as an overlay journal to provide a level of rigorous peer review for preprints, not only to provide quality control but also to improve papers through the editorial process. In fact, I think the latter is more important than the former.

5 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »