From Kate Becker at Nautilus:
Before arXiv, preprint papers were available only within small scientific circles, distributed by hand and by mail, and the journals in which they were ultimately published months later (if they were published at all) were holed up in university libraries. But arXiv has democratized the playing field, giving scientists instant access to ideas from all kinds of colleagues, all over the world, from prestigious chairs at elite universities to post-docs drudging away at off-brand institutions and scientists in developing countries with meager research support.
Paul Ginsparg set up arXiv in 1991, when he was a 35-year-old physicist at Los Alamos. He expected only about 100 papers to go out to a few hundred email subscribers in the first year. But by the summer of 1992, more than 1,200 papers had been submitted. It was a good problem to have, but still a problem. While Ginsparg had no intention of giving incoming papers the top-to-tail scrutiny of peer review, he did want to be sure that readers could find the ones they were most interested in. So he started binning the incoming papers into new categories and sub-categories and bringing on more and more moderators, who took on the work as volunteers, as a service to their scientific community.
As with all genuinely new ideas ripe for their time, the production was messy and there have been a lot of out takes.
A big factor is, inevitably, human judgement. One can only develop an algorithm for what on can think oneself. So:
Authors who go through the formal scientific training process—four years of college, many more years as a graduate student and post-doc—do more than just absorb a set of facts and a method of thinking and experimenting. They also learn to communicate in a specific style. “Being a scientist is 90 percent language—knowing how to speak, talking the talk,” says Reyes-Galindo. More.
Well, a lingo-perfect sales pitch works better than a language-unfriendly one, for sure, but… Fortunately, the server flags questioned papers for human scrutiny as well. Unfortunately,
“Long before the Internet, we can find examples of curious work on the boundaries,” says Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist and historian of science David Kaiser. “Some of it rightly has gone nowhere, but some of it really does cash out.” Plenty of today’s take-it-for-granted science principles—the heliocentric solar system, the notion that invisible fields convey physical forces, or that physical laws can be described by mathematical equations—were seen as radical in their day. And some investigations that were dismissed in the 1970s as hazy, drug-induced blather are now indispensable to research on quantum theory, Kaiser adds.
What it all comes down to: Papers can well-written and their conclusions consistent with reality but the authors can face a hell storm from people who just don’t like the ideas.
That said, preprint gives researchers a better chance to connect with a community that wants to see the ideas developed.
See also: Junk science publishing house buys up journals?
How the U.S. Food and Drug Administration controls science stories
and
Study results released under court order show patients misled
Follow UD News at Twitter!