Monday, February 27, 2006

arXiv trackback controversy

A lively controversy has recently broken out in the physics blogosphere regarding the recently revealed (and previously somewhat mysterious) trackback policy on the arXiv. For some time, the arXiv has had a mechanism by which approved blogs could post trackbacks to preprints on the arXiv. This would allow researchers looking at a paper to see that and where it is being discussed on physics blogs, and help bring people interested in discussing it together on the same discussion boards. Seems like a good idea, right? Now the problem is of course which blogs to approve for posting trackbacks. There are a lot of cranks, lunatics and plain idiots populating the web, and many of them have their own ideas about fundamental physics (anybody remember Archimedes Plutonium?), which you would definitely not want to be linked to from the arXiv. So the arXiv board decided to vet blogs before allowing them to post trackbacks. So far everything seems fine.

Enter Peter Woit, whose blog Not Even Wrong is very strongly critical of String Theory, suggesting that it is, in Wolfgang Pauli's words, not only not right, but "not even wrong". That kind of criticism is obviously not welcomed by string theorists, many of whom therefore consider Woit a crank (even though he holds a permanent position in mathematics at Columbia University). So what happens when Peter Woit tries to post a trackback to the arXiv? It gets rejected, and since the arXiv trackback policy is sort of secret at that point, Peter feels justified to complain about censorship by string theorists on his blog. His case is taken up by Cosmic Variance, prompting Jacques Distler to reveal the arXiv's trackback policy on his blog.

It turns out that the arXiv trackback policy is to allow trackbacks only from currently active researchers (as judged by the number of their papers on the arXiv). Since Peter Woit apparently has only two papers on the arXiv, his blog does not qualify, and there is apparently no censorship involved.

However, the question arises of how useful this kind of policy actually is. For example, this post on a well-known physics blog simply tries to ridicule the work of people the author disagrees with, but since the author is an active researcher it generates a trackback. On the other hand, this post and this post are perfectly reasonable and non-cranky, and the latter one even sparked a long and technical (if somewhat heated) discussion, but they can't generate trackbacks. Not all active researchers are always interested in a serious discussion, and someone who hasn't recently published any papers may still be able to start a useful discussion.

This blog, for example, probably does not qualify for arXiv trackbacks, since Matthew has left the field and my publication record probably does not meet the required standards at this point in time. I do not believe that makes either of us a crank with nothing worthwhile to say. And any crank who gets someone to endorse his papers for the arXiv (which does happen) might still pass muster as an active researcher and be allowed to post trackbacks. Maybe a more reasonable policy would be to allow trackbacks from blogs written by people who have an official affiliation with a university or public research institution.

The arXiv people definitely have a very tough job, and I do not envy them for it. And whatever specific criticisms one may want to raise, on the whole they ought to be congratulated on doing their job very well and providing a hugely important resource to the physics community. The trackback issue is really relatively minor, but like all things in the blogosphere that exceed a certain critical mass, it is currently undergoing a chain reaction. But it is important that these issues are discussed, because any kind censorship of undesired views or results has to be totally unacceptable in science, and it is important that even the slightest suspicion that legitimate work might be suppressed is investigated and laid to rest.

On a totally unrelated topic: There is a cool post on quantum interrogation (a way to use quantum mechanics to obtain the answer to a question without ever really asking it, roughly speaking) over at Cosmic Variance. The explanation given there involves puppies and the new discipline of quantum cooking, where meals are prepared in superpositions of different recipe states.

Update: As Peter Woit pointed out in a comment, the arXiv trackback policy was in fact not first revealed on Jacques Distler's blog, but in a comment on Cosmic Variance by Ethan Vishniac of the arXiv advisory board.

Update: It was pointed out by Jacques Distler that Life on the Lattice is allowed to post trackbacks to the arXiv on the basis of Matthew's publication record, and using Haloscan I have been able to verify that this is indeed the case.

Update: As Jacques has asked for ideas about how to improve the trackback system, here is my proposal, which I have also submitted as a comment on his blog (replies to go there please): Each arXiv user gets to put the URL to their blog or homepage into their arXiv user profile along with their email address. Each time someone posts a paper, they receive a number of trackback credits (five, say), which can then be used to post trackbacks to papers. No credit, no trackbacks. This would formalise the “active researcher” criterion in an objective manner, while being inclusive of researchers with short publication records and keeping the signal-to-noise ratio high, since you wouldn’t want to waste your hard-earned credits.


Peter Woit said...

Hi Georg,

Thanks for your sensible post about this. A couple minor corrections. The arXiv "active researcher" standard was not first revealed by Jacques on his blog, but in the comment section of another blog, Cosmic Variance, by Ethan Vishniac of the arXiv advisory board. I had put months of unsuccessful effort into trying to find out why links to my blog were being suppressed, it was peculiar to find out the answer this way.

The meaning of the "active researcher" standard has not been defined by the arXiv. At the moment it seems to be that an active researcher is someone Jacques Distler thinks is an active researcher. He has been rather careful to not explain what this means, and has not said that it is based on number of arXiv postings, and if so how many are needed.

So, maybe you're an active researcher, maybe you aren't. The answer to this may depend on the number of your arXiv postings, it also may depend on your opinions about string theory.

Lumo said...

Dear Georg,

you chose two examples of "non-cranky and reasonable" posts on Not Even Wrong.

I think that you are not being reasonable.

The first is a vacuous link to a work by Yau - a link that says a couple of nice words about Yau but nothing relevant for the problem whatsoever and whose only purpose is to waste the time of the readers and create a false picture that Not Even Wrong can be something more than just a permanent source of whining and illogical rants.

The second article about Nicolai et al. review of loop quantum gravity only led to a reasonable debate - that eventually explained why loop quantum gravity is nonsense - only because it got out of Peter Woit's control.

Otherwise Peter Woit's own text is a typical example of a crackpot's comment about physics research. For example the repeated statements that they are not even-handed because they are using tools of physics as understood by string theorists. Only completely dumb people who have no idea about actual physics research could suggest that one should avoid the state-of-the-art tools of modern physics to be even-handed, and if you agree with Woit on this one, please place yourself next to him.

Comparing Peter's dumb one-dimensional rants with my technical analyses of the papers is kind of insulting. And if you think that those text of Peter are more legitimate as a source of scientific commentaries than mine, then sorry to say, but you are closer to crackpots than to high-energy physics.

All the best

Georg said...


I certainly do not believe that someone's views on the merits or lack thereof of any particular branch of theoretical high-energy physics have anything to do with whether they are allowed to post trackbacks to the arXiv; that is just conspiracy theory thinking. The current policy leaves a lot to be desired, but unless I were to see proof of the opposite, I choose to believe in the scientific integrity of the arXiv moderators.

Georg said...

Dear Lubos,

A post simply pointing out a paper with a brief (even ultra-brief) summary is a perfectly legitimate service to the community in my opinion, and could serve as a perfectly good anchor for a discussion between other members of the community. And to claim that a discussion on someone's blog can leave their control is a rather strange statement, since there is always the delete button; Peter even specifically stated that he was nowhere near being an expert on LQG and asked for comments on both sides.

I am not fighting Peter's battles here; all I am doing is pointing out that there are good and bad posts both on blogs that are permitted to trackback and on blogs that aren't. So the current policy is kind of broken and should probably be replaced. Maybe trackbacks will have to be stopped altogether when this discussion is over, although that would be a pity.

Peter's views may be biased, and sometimes his tone may not be pleasant to listen to. But are you really claiming that your views are objective? Or that your usual tone is polite? There is a German saying: "Wer im Glashaus sitzt, sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen" (Who sits in a house of glass should not throw stones), which I think applies here.
Your commentary on the Smolin paper (whose merits I am not qualified to judge) is a pure polemic (comparing it to your teenage ideas, the caricature of an octopus etc.). Ad hominem attacks really have no place in scientific discourse.

Best wishes,

Matthew said...

I've no idea if this blog is trackback enabled or not, however I would say that any system in which Georg does not qualify as an active researcher is not going to work.