As someone who is on the arXiv blacklist I feel particularly strongly about the attempts by the gate-keepers - journal editors and arXiv moderators - to suppress papers that challenge the established physics orthodoxies, particularly in the fields of particle physics and cosmology. Whilst researching this topic recently, I noticed that a source of information I had previously used: www.archivefreedom.org has been hacked and is now no longer maintained. Fortunatly I discovered that a copy of the original site is still accessible on the internet archive at: https://web.archive.org/web/20210602111750/http://www.archivefreedom.org/ and most of the links therein still work. I personally feel that this resource should be maintained and readily accessible to the members of the ACG and anyone else wishing to research the topic of academic censorship, and my proposal would be to add it to the cosmology.info website. What do others think?
you can post to vixra tough, usually i discover unorthodox papers on researchgate
Also HAL https://hal.science/
Thanks for the suggestions. I was already aware of vixra and indeed have used it one one occasion for one of my papers. However, I found the hit rate for articles on this site very low. I now post my preprints on preprints.org cross linked to ResearchGate and this seems much more efffective in getting articles picked up by search engines.
However, the main point of my post about arXiv was not so much about “how can I get published” as to document the barriers that are being faced by scientists trying to get their unorthodox ideas to a wider audience.
@rajbooth The archivefreedom.org website is about censorship in science in general. Since the amount of information we can upload on ACG/github is limited, it would not be feasable to host every website about censorship.
However, if you wish to have a section on the ACG website devoted to censorship, let me know and I’ll send you another invite to access the acg repo. You can then upload what’s left of archivefreedom.org.
I looked at their list “The Following Scientists are Totally Blocked…” and found the names of some contributors to cosmology: Robert Gentry, Michael Ibison, Paul LaViolette, Jacques Moret-Bailly, A. Kirilyuk, Eric Lerner, Martin Lopez Corredoira, etc.
All of them already have an article on the ACG website, or are ACG members or already mentioned in the ACG Newsletter, so I believe the addition of archivefreedom.org won’t bring much more to ACG.
@RedshiftDrift I am not getting the feeling that there is much interest from members of this group in keeping track of how fellow scientists are being affected by arXiv censorship, so probably best just to let this drop. I will add a few pages to my own website just to preserve the www.archivefreedom.org content and links while it is still to some extent accessible.
@rajbooth . >I will add a few pages to my own website
Question: what is the URL of your own website?
My personal website can be found at: lostinspacetime.blog
@rajbooth Robin, enjoy Demysticon 2025 and make sure to publicize ACG! Despite having three ACG members as guest speakers, hosts Anastasia and Shilo do not know that their goal, “to find revolutionary insights that will lead to a paradigm shift in cosmology,” is what ACG has been doing for more than 20 years. Unfortunately, the dissident community is broken up in many small groups (e.g. “Insular Institute”? the “Natural Philosophy Society,” etc.) which do not know of each other’s existence, and do not work well together.
As far as I know, Demysticon 2025 will not publish “Conference Proceedings” so the presentations/discussions will not be available to the scientific community in the future.
About arXiv censorship: there is not much interest from members of this group because it’s an old battle that seems impossible to win. Eric Lerner has been fighting hard and even has a petition on his website https://www.lppfusion.com/scientists-protest-censorship-in-cosmology/ ; you will meet him in Sesimbra. This is not only a problem for dissident scientists: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.19267 (from a discussion on Reddit) but arXiv editors don’t care.