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

[arie.0.bos at gmail.com]

Perhaps https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ is a (more) acceptable alternative for arXiv (and vixra) as a "reliable source".

Arie Bos


> -----Original Message-----
> From: SeqFan <seqfan-bounces at list.seqfan.eu> On Behalf Of Richard J.
> Mathar
> Sent: maandag 2 april 2018 02:14
> To: seqfan at seqfan.eu
> Subject: [seqfan] Re: So-called "junk" journals
> 
> 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/