Backwards Archive

Via @mattleiffer,

In part is a parody of to highlight Cornell University's unacceptable censorship policy. It is also an experiment to see what kind of scientific work is being excluded by the arXiv. But most of all it is a serious and permanent e-print archive for scientific work. Unlike tt [sic] is truly open to scientists from all walks of life.

Maybe I should submit one of my papers with all of the text reversed (yeah, yeah, it would still be incomprehensible.)

More like this

Sorry for the ridiculously slow pace around here lately; I've been ridiculously busy. I'm changing projects at work; it's the end of the school year for my kids; and I'm getting close to the end-game for my book. Between all of those, I just haven't had much time for blogging lately. Anyway... I…
Will Harvard junior faculty publish first author Nature papers now? I have to confess that with the experience of I am continually bemused by the fervour over open access in the rest of academia. Now, I gather, Harvard has passed a faculty resolution mandating open access for all faculty… help - arXiv Support FAQ "This FAQ addresses questions raised in response to Cornell University Library's work to develop a diversified funding model to support arXiv. In a nutshell: We are working with peer libraries to investigate voluntary contributions from institutions that are the…
There's been a lot written recently about academic publishing, in the kerfuffle over the "Research Works Act"-- John's roundup should keep you in reading material for a good while. This has led some people to decide to boycott Elsevier, including Aram Harrow of the Quantum Vatican. I'm generally in…

Dave, you quoted "unacceptable censorship policy", do you agree or to what extent? I've heard of all that, I recommend not just blowing it off. They've got "kids" in there, we hear, who can't really distinguish good but odd looking work, but pass odd but not so good work, or etc.

By Neil B ⪠(not verified) on 16 Jul 2009 #permalink

Niel B: My personal opinion doesn't matter much, you know. If I say I think that all works should be allowed into the arxiv, then my colleagues will complain about letting cranks in the door. If I say I think that there should be a strong moderation policy, then those excluded will raise all hell. Hence I can, and will, blow it off, until one side convinces me that they have a winning hand. Neither side has done so, from my perspective.

Is it pure coincidence that the name of the new site looks a little bit like vi@Gr@ spam ?
(Of course the original name of the arxiv was a little bit misleading too...)