arXiv moderation

The core goal of arXiv is to make preprints quickly available for anyone to read, avoiding the long processing times of peer-reviewed journals.

 

Some moderation is necessary to prevent the listings from being swamped with spam or pseudoscience. But in recent years the volume of submissions and moderators' workloads have ballooned, leading to delays in processing submissions. For example, last year one of our preprints was flagged as being incorrectly classified and spent one and a half weeks in the moderation queue (as if we didn't know who our intended audience was).

Recently, Prof. Jorge Hirsch was banned from submitting articles for 6 months on the basis of comments he posted on a claimed observation of room temperature superconductivity: Preprint server removes ‘inflammatory’ papers in superconductor controversy

I read one of the comments when it first appeared (arXiv:2201.07686v1). My interest was piqued by the last sentence of the abstract, "We conclude that the published data have been manipulated, making it impossible to draw any conclusions about the susceptibility of the material from the reported numbers." This statement has been removed from the latest version of the manuscript.

I am not an expert on superconductivity, so I'm not sure how much credence to give this claim. Whether the claim is correct or not is beside the point. arXiv is not a journal and moderators are not journal editors responsible for peer review. Manuscripts by established researchers should not be censored in this manner. Why is arxiv stifling academic debate?