{"id":4133,"date":"2010-07-20T22:37:50","date_gmt":"2010-07-21T05:37:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/?p=4133"},"modified":"2010-07-20T22:37:50","modified_gmt":"2010-07-21T05:37:50","slug":"does-the-arxiv-forbid-posting-referee-reports","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/2010\/07\/20\/does-the-arxiv-forbid-posting-referee-reports\/","title":{"rendered":"Does the arXiv Forbid Posting Referee Reports?"},"content":{"rendered":"

ArXiv:1007.3202<\/a> is a paper whose conclusions I do not agree with (well actually I do think the original EPR paper is “wrong”, but not for the reasons the author gives!)\u00a0 The abstract of the paper is as follows:<\/p>\n

EPR paper [1] contains an error. Its correction leads to a conclusion that position and momentum of a particle can be defined precisely simultaneously, EPR paradox does not exist and uncertainty relations have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Logic of the EPR paper shows that entangled states of separated particles do not exist and therefore there are no nonlocality in quantum mechanics. Bell\u2019s inequalities are never violated, and results of experiments, proving their violation, are shown to be false. Experiments to prove absence of nonlocality are proposed where Bell\u2019s inequalities are replaced by precise prediction. Interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of classical field theory is suggested. Censorship against this paper is demonstrated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Okay, fine, the paper makes some pretty astounding claims (at one point I believe the author simply rediscovers the detector efficiency loop-hole in Bell inequality experiments), but that’s not what really interests me.\u00a0 What really interests me is the authors claim of censorship.\u00a0 In particular the paper reports on the authors attempt to submit this paper to a workshop, QUANTUM 2010, whose proceedings would appear in the “International Journal of Quantum Information\u201d and the rejection he received.\u00a0 Okay, fine, standard story here.\u00a0 But then the author gives a synopsis of the referee reports, followed by, I think, a more interesting claim:<\/p>\n

I am sorry that I did not put here the full referee reports. The ArXiv admin forbidden to do that. I was told that anonymous referee reports are the subject of the copy right law. It is really terrible, if it is true. The referee report is a court verdict against my paper. Imagine that a court verdict is a subject of the copyright law. Then you would never be able to appeal against it. I think that the only punishment to dishonest and irresponsible referees is publication of their repots. It is so evident! But we see that dishonesty and incompetence are protected. I do not agree with such a policy, however I have nothing to do but to take dictation of ArXiv admin.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Is it really true that the arXiv forbids publishing referee reports?\u00a0 Do referees really retain copyright on the referee reports?\u00a0 And if so, should it be this way or should referees have to give up copyright on their reports?\u00a0 Inquiring minds want to know!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

ArXiv:1007.3202 is a paper whose conclusions I do not agree with (well actually I do think the original EPR paper is “wrong”, but not for the reasons the author gives!)\u00a0 The abstract of the paper is as follows: EPR paper [1] contains an error. Its correction leads to a conclusion that position and momentum of … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Does the arXiv Forbid Posting Referee Reports?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[73],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-scientific-publishing"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4133","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4133"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4133\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}