3

Is there an alternative to the arXiv for uploading mathematical papers?

Here is the story. Upon attempting to upload a modified version of a published paper to the arXiv, it was put "on hold" and, a few days later (today), I was notified that "Our moderators determined that your submission does not contain sufficient original or substantive scholarly research and is not of interest to arXiv."

The same message was given when I attempted to upload an earlier version of the paper months ago. Back then, I didn't agree with the statement, but I assumed that the arXiv made the decision because my result was standalone. More recently, post-publication, I was able to tweak the result to resolve several conjectures that were predicted and have been open on the OEIS for around five years (I would rather not get into details here, but you might be able to figure out what I am talking about if you look at my recent post history). The new document that I tried to upload to the arXiv contains the proofs.

Is there an alternative to the arXiv for posting mathematical papers? It presumably won't be as popular of a platform and so people who might have otherwise found the results interesting will likely not see it, but I don't see much of a choice.

Stefan Kohl
  • 19,498
  • 21
  • 73
  • 136
Favst
  • 1,985
  • 3
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViXra – Noah Snyder Nov 17 '22 at 18:06
  • 8
    There is of course an enormous number of mathematical journals you could submit to. Publishing in reputable journals is an excellent way to get posting privileges on the arXiv. If you don't like those options, you could post on a website of your own design, i.e. self-publish. – Ryan Budney Nov 17 '22 at 18:16
  • 1
    @RyanBudney The original paper has already been published. I have submitted the newer results (those that resolve the conjectures on the OEIS) to a different journal for refereeing. I had hoped to post the latter on the arXiv soon so that the OEIS has a link as a reference, but it looks like that is not an option at the moment. – Favst Nov 17 '22 at 18:22
  • 1
    Perhaps you might find the answers here useful: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/357077/note-rejected-from-arxiv-what-to-do-next – Vladimir Dotsenko Nov 17 '22 at 18:27
  • 15
    Also, may I ask where it was published? The general criterion of arXiv has always been "publishable in a non-predatory journal". – Vladimir Dotsenko Nov 17 '22 at 18:29
  • 6
    Why is there a need to post the paper on arXiv, if it has already been published? – Deane Yang Nov 17 '22 at 19:21
  • 14
    @DeaneYang Did you think of a possibility that some people actually write papers to be read, and not only "published" behind a paywall? – Denis T Nov 17 '22 at 22:12
  • 2
    @DenisT, good point. I forgot about the paywall. – Deane Yang Nov 18 '22 at 00:07
  • Figshare is another venue you could try. – David Roberts Nov 18 '22 at 03:16
  • 1
    I've just found this article which could be quite useful for knowing more about other common online resources for licence/code/DOI/etc., such as Zenodo, Dryad, GitHub, Figshare,... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287360164_Elevating_The_Status_of_Code_in_Ecology – Marco Ripà Nov 18 '22 at 03:54
  • 2
    @VladimirDotsenko it's not a prestigious journal by any means, but it's not a predatory journal. They do not ask for fees and I received meaningful feedback from a reviewer that had to be incorporated as a revision before acceptance. I would rather not turn this thread into being about supporting/demeaning a particular journal, so I'll avoid getting into details. – Favst Nov 18 '22 at 11:17
  • 1
    @DeaneYang In this case, the reason for posting a published paper on the arXiv is to incorporate the modifications that prove the conjectures and the OEIS to it where the conjectures have been sitting for a while. I might just wait until a journal publishes the second paper and link the OEIS to that instead. – Favst Nov 18 '22 at 11:19
  • 2
    @Favst there are many examples of predatory publishers and predatory journals that waive fees on particular occasions. I find it quite odd that you (in the original post) were so relaxed about accusing moderators of a crucial service of harassment but feel the need to be so protective of the journal name. – Vladimir Dotsenko Nov 18 '22 at 20:22

1 Answers1

3

Aside the suggestion to send your preprint to a peer-review journal, here are some online repositories that I recently used together with (or as an alternative to) the arXiv (i.e., some of my preprints/papers are also on the arXiv, whereas some others are available only in (some of) the repositories listed below):

  1. HAL I consider this as the best alternative to the arXiv, but you can also share your preprints using both of them, if accepted by the moderators; here is an example of my old paper entitled "Patterns related to the Smarandache circular sequence primality problem", published on NNTDM in 2012, that was not accepted by the arXiv moderators, so I have consequently submitted it to HAL [ https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03703339 ]
  2. Optimization online: Depending on the topic of your contents, it could be an option to choose Optimization Online; here is an example of a preprint of mine that is also available on the arXiv [ https://optimization-online.org/2022/06/8968/ ]
  3. viXra: I do not recommend this solution as a first choice, but viXra is $100\%$ open, it does not require any endorsement or an institutional affiliation before submitting a manuscript and it contains lots of preprints... the overall quality is (IMHO) considerably lower than the average preprint available on arXiv, but I think that this should not be a valid reason to refuse to share/read anything posted there (and my first preprints are still available on viXra, no regrets at all) https://vixra.org/
  4. ResearchGate: A scientific social network, not an online repository as the above, so I put this as a fourth option due to the only reason that some/many journals will not allow you to share your preprints on RG too (read carefully the journal rules/policy if you are planning to submit your preprints to a journal too) https://www.researchgate.net/

P.S. I understand arXiv moderators' policy, even if sometime I have disagreed with them about refusing a paper as the one mentioned above... its a free and reputable service, that requires higher standards than some other repositories... and humans can disagree about the content of a preprint sometime, expecially if they have only a few hours/days to take their decision.

Marco Ripà
  • 1,119
  • 4
  • 18
  • 8
    Vixra is a gamble. There's a very small amount of decent work there, and I would advise something like ResearchGate for figshare or Academia.edu above vixra, since it sends a certain sort of signal. – David Roberts Nov 18 '22 at 03:17
  • I didn't know Figshare before, I've just taken a look and it seems to be very good. Then, I am taking only into account 100% free repositories and I put RG as a fourth choice, since it could be not allowed by some journals (which is the premise of the whole answer, but I like it very much as a user)... if we are only looking at the average overall quality of the preprints, I generally agree to put RG above viXra. – Marco Ripà Nov 18 '22 at 03:34
  • P.S. Feel free to rearrange my list by changing the order of the entries as you wish... that was just my thought, based on the specific question, not an absolute ranking of the repositories. – Marco Ripà Nov 18 '22 at 03:37
  • @DavidRoberts in all fairness, ResearchGate also has an awful lot of truly bizarre preprints, as I discovered recently in the process of being harassed by someone demanding me to read their rather hopeless writings aiming to solve most Millenium problems... – Vladimir Dotsenko Nov 18 '22 at 10:36
  • Any thoughts on Zenodo? I came across it just now and wondered about it. – Favst Nov 18 '22 at 11:21
  • I basically agree that we can find some/many bizzarre preprints on both viXra and RG (e.g., I remember preprints claiming proofs for Goldbach conjecture, FLT - in less than 10 pages -, and so on...). I think that about $15%$ of viXra contents could be publishable by some non-predatory journal without addressing them (at least) for major revisions, while this percentage would be higher for RG.
    About Zenodo and OSF, I do not know them well, but I think that their main advantage is to let you share also intermediate drafts.     – Marco Ripà Nov 18 '22 at 14:35
  • In Favst's particular case (i.e., sharing a preprint by adding it in the link section of some OEIS sequences), I think that you can use almost any of the repositories that I've already mentioned above (so I did several times... arXiv, HAL, RG are usually pretty fine if the content of the preprint is relevant/valuable). – Marco Ripà Nov 18 '22 at 14:38
  • @VladimirDotsenko I see lots of good papers on ResearchGate, for instance that turn up in google searches for actual results—but I've seen maybe two good papers on vixra, and they were slightly special cases. I confess that I don't go specifically browsing it, but one would imagine that serious papers would bubble up every now and then, were they there. – David Roberts Nov 19 '22 at 00:15
  • @DavidRoberts every good research paper I saw on RG was actually published elsewhere (in a reputable journal or on the arXiv). I strongly believe that if one looks at instances where the only published copy is on RG, it is as much bottom of the barrel as vixra. In any case, seeing it on the same list as HAL both amused and frightened me. – Vladimir Dotsenko Nov 19 '22 at 06:55
  • @VladimirDotsenko since the paper in question is submitted to a real journal already, and the OP expects it to be published, then I'm not sure what the problem is... – David Roberts Nov 19 '22 at 08:47