[seqfan] Re: So-called "junk" journals

[Joerg Arndt]

It may (not) amuse you that arvix is not immune
to less than fantastic papers:
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.11461
This one even contains the dreaded Sm... word.

Btw. asking friends/peers for some checking
before something leaves the door has proved
useful to me every single time.

Best regards,   jj


* Richard J. Mathar <mathar at mpia-hd.mpg.de> [Apr 02. 2018 09:43]:
> Here is why some of my papers are in http://vixra.org/author/richard_j_mathar :
> 
> http://vixra.org/abs/1403.0977
> because it was rejected by arXiv. I never learend why, but I guess
> I stepped onto some editor's turf here.
> 
> http://vixra.org/abs/1708.0404
> hung in the arXiv queue for over two weeks when I assumed that
> they would probably not accept it. There was a rumour (spread
> by the submission computer) that some of my equations were
> out of bounds. Later on, when I inquired to arXiv what was
> wrong with it, I got the answer that they were looking at it.
> Now that stuff has got two sources, vixra and arxiv, arxiv
> slightly newer and better.
> 
> There are also some in vixra where I know that they are written
> too hastily to meet my own criteria of readability and,
> although useful, not worth to spent too much effort on the subject.
> 
> The only downside I have seen is: any attempt of
> cross-referencing from a wikipedia article to a vixra-article
> will be definitely be deleted by wikipedians. That was the case with 
> http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0140 [Ironically I wrote
> the article, now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pouring_puzzle,
> and my own publication was deleted as a source by David Eppstein
> using "a notorious hive of crankery, not acceptable as a reliable
> source" as his formula.]
> 
> RJM
> 
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/