Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust (Matt Flax )

Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust
From:    Matt Flax  <flatmax@xxxxxxxx>
Date:    Mon, 7 Aug 2023 12:42:42 +1000

Has anyone has been following the LK-99 research in motion event which=20 recently gripped the world? I think it is a great example of fantastic=20 science and research in motion. Researchers go through the process of scientific induction to generate a=20 hypothesis. In most science, hypotheses can't be proven but can=20 certainly be dis-proven. In the case of LK-99 we can assume that the researchers tested their=20 output to the best of their abilities. I assume they tested their output=20 to the best of their abilities. They then released their research to=20 pre-print servers to get it into other researcher's hands. They notify=20 everyone using social media. Their research is so significant that it=20 creates a buzz. Other independent researchers around the world immediately begin=20 replicating their research, because their papers were clear enough on=20 how to implement their research. Pre-print servers and social media were=20 again used to release independent validation efforts on the LK-99=20 material. Other research institutions which have different techniques,=20 equipment and capabilities then pushed the research beyond what the=20 original group from South Korea were capable of. Within two weeks the outcomes of this research was settled and the wold=20 now understands LK-99 better. Beyond this, the world is now now more=20 interested in superconductors and science. If we follow the line of science it must go something like this : The original researcher uses scientific induction to implement a=20 hypothesis. Hypotheses aren't easy to prove but can certainly be=20 disproven. Rapid validation efforts and sophisticated methods were used=20 globally by independent groups to see if they could replicate the=20 original pre-print research. Indeed, a large number of these=20 institutions were able to implement and disprove certain conjectures in=20 the research. The end result was a disproof (at this point I assume it=20 LK-99 was disproven to be a superconductor) of a hypothesis. Now I'm not saying that good research and outcomes don't happen through=20 peer reviewed journals, but I am saying that in the case LK-99, peer=20 reviewed journals were not in the picture and we experienced rapid hard=20 science. What a fantastic example of hard science in motion. Matt On 24/5/23 17:41, Brian FG Katz wrote: > > I think there is a dangerous misnomer using the term pre-print, vs=20 > post-print. > > Pre-print is an unreviewed un-published work, only submitted elsewhere=20 > for consideration. It has no more reference value than a blog, and=20 > maybe should be re-termed as such. Any results are therefore to be=20 > taken with a grain of salt, as with many conference papers which lack=20 > any significant review process. > > While rapid sharing of one=E2=80=99s work may have interest, serious=20 > peer-review acceptance is rarely a question of typo or minor errors,=20 > more typically involving revisions to analysis regularly requiring=20 > (significant) changes to the manuscript, or even identification of=20 > protocol errors hindering publication of the work due to invalid result= s. > > I will not enter into the discussion of cost and compensation, as this=20 > varies greatly between journals and organisations. However, I would=20 > remain on the side of the need for serious peer-review. > > -- > > Brian FG Katz, Research Director, CNRS > > Groupe Lutheries - Acoustique =E2=80=93 Musique > > Sorbonne Universit=C3=A9, CNRS, UMR 7190, Institut Jean Le Rond =E2=88=82= 'Alembert > > > > On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 12:15, Matt Flax <flatmax@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Is anyone publishing on arXiv at the moment ? It seems that to > publish > there they rely on a web of trust. > > There is an Audio and Speech section of arXiv which would suit our > community. > > thanks > > Matt >

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University