Exactly one year ago, I posted my first paper about mirror matter theory on arXiv.org. I wanted a little celebration and therefore submitted my latest work to arXiv yesterday. It is probably the most complete and astonishing of all – building a dynamic theory or staged models to describe the universe from the very beginning when the arrow of time started all the way to the Standard Model physics we know best about today.
The paper was supposed to show up on arXiv yesterday. Unfortunately, arXiv administrators decided to put it on hold and obviously ruined my anniversary celebration a little bit. It was a surprise to me as this is my first on-hold experience with arXiv. I don’t know what in my paper is so alarming to arXiv administrators or moderators. Maybe they regard it a crackpot? Or maybe this is just another example of over-regulation on the arXiv side. I just hope it won’t become another long ordeal like the ones I have been enduring with the journals.
How can we have all scientists publish their works on equal grounds? How can we make sure that the good ideas and results get published fairly instead of falling through the cracks? How can we prevent the major journals publish fake/bad results because of limited or insufficient reviews?
How can we prevent an elite circle publish their works easily while bullying others or new comers outside the circle? How can we prevent one biased referee/editor killing the publication of one brilliant paper? How can we use every critical eye in the scientific community to vet a manuscript before it gets published?
Here my goal is to imagine an ideal publication system for science, at least basic science. We can start with physics. But it may apply to other disciplines as well.
Continue reading “A unified publication system with arXiv-based overlay journals”
Scientific research, by nature, should be open. All knowledge accumulated via generations of scientific research is the common wealth of all human beings and should be shared and passed on for our future endeavors. As such, the practice of open standards in sciences, at least basic sciences, should be in the heart of every scientist.
Unfortunately, many other concerns and issues seem to be diverting sciences from keeping the very nature of openness. Concerns related to national security, intellectual properties, copyrights, and credits, are all valid, yet they should not become barriers to block open access to science.
Here are the list of things, I think, we scientists can do better to make science more open among ourselves and to the general public. I hope to discuss some of them in more detail in my later posts.
Continue reading “Open standards for scientific research”
I don’t like to be alone. I like discussions and collaborations with other intelligent people, in particular, for scientific research. But the reality is that one will be forced to stay alone or feel lonely (scientifically) more often than not if one’s unusual ideas have not been widely accepted.
Continue reading “The way to be lonely”
Over the course of half a year since the birth of my mirror-matter model (MMM or M3), it’s been quite a battle to get any of my M3 related papers to be published on major journals. Here I put together some of the comments from the editors and reviewers to get a glimpse of how “friendly” esteemed scientists are when facing new ideas proposed under a relatively unknown name.
Continue reading “A battle to publish my mirror-matter papers”