Yesterday the moderators at arXiv.org informed me that my submission of Education, division & derivative: Putting a Sky above a Field or a Meadow at math.HO was rejected and removed. The situation is quite annoying. The attitude at arXiv.org is unscientific and uncivilised. When people do not state a developed argument then you are left with guessing. And if they would give a reason then you would hope that they would listen to a reply, but this isn’t their attitude. They just delete, no questions asked.
It is only an archive. In my idea it should suffice for a research archive that you have a university degree, which by definition ought to prepare you for science. If universities are not up to that task then do something about universities but do not try to second-guess them.
After some deliberation my suggestion to the world is to use other archives like viXra.org in combination with PressForward – the WordPress Plugin. Leave the hassle of arXiv and concentrate on PressForward.
To: thomas cool / thomas colignatus
From: arXiv Moderation
Subject: [moderation #129703] arXiv:submit/1073199 removed
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014
—- ———————- ————————————————–
Your submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators, who determined it to be inappropriate for arXiv. Please find another forum.
Please do not resubmit this paper without contacting moderation and obtaining a positive response. Resubmission of removed papers may result in suspension of submission privileges.
For more information on our moderation policies see:
What is wrong with arXiv.org ? Why do they act like this ?
In 2009 they rejected a crosslink of Elegance with Substance (EWS) (AMS Book List, Notices Vol 58, No 11, p1474) too. That book / PDF is also at the economics MPRA in Munich since it also deals with the political economy of the mathematics industry, but EWS discusses mathematics and its education and points of didactics, and thus ought to warrant a (cross) listing in arXiv.
The issue is not merely the use of formula’s and theorems and proofs. Check “Through a Glass Darkly” by Steven Krantz, 2008, and try to spot the theorem.
Part of the problem is that Research Mathematics (RM) is not aware that the Education of Mathematics (EM) a.k.a. School Mathematics (SM) is an empirical issue. Empirical science is a different ballgame than RM are used to. There is no specific EM category so you are left with math.HO. Some papers that partly deal with education apparently are accepted. A search on mathematics AND education gave 382 hits (see one of mine). But it is obvious that the mathematics education research community is not very active on arXiv.org. (There will be more reasons, see PM 4 below.)
The problem at arXiv.org is: they are horribly afraid of cranks. The Einsteins of the world are afraid of cranks, can you imagine ? The fear of the pest, cholera, leprosy, aids and perhaps now also ebola is in them. So, okay, they are not real Einsteins, but high priests of an academy turned into a bureaucracy. They hide under the cloak of a library, perverting what libraries are intended for.
Phil Gibbs created viXra.org as an alternative for time-stamping and getting a fixed URL (FURL). It is said that only 15% of that archived material gets adopted in the peer reviewed journals. Of course peer review is no real check on quality yet. It all depends what the final readership will think. Smart readers will look at more material than just appears in the official journals – material such as in arXiv.
The very use of arXiv should make the moderators modest about the importance of peer review but tends to make them arrogant as the accountants of truth. People at arXiv.org will be very happy with viXra.org as it saves them a lot of work. Perhaps I am not paranoid enough and should think that Gibbs merely is a front of arXiv to get rid of what they consider the burden of noise. I am amazed to see an author submitting the words of Jesus as quoted to him. viXra has been called a “crank magnet”.
Overall, Gibbs has a good point on that FURL. Researchers have all kinds of reasons that do not fit the hassle that arXiv.org creates. I had two endorsers in 2009 but now had to find a new person in 2014, and then they arrogantly claim that they can judge my work. ArXiv.org disinforms the world, as it does not provide what it says it does. Keeping a cross reference to EWS out since 2009 is a big shame, and mathematics education has been suffering the consequences. ArXiv.org is a shame. It uses taxpayer and fund money so that moderators can feel important and satisfy their religious fears for cranks as the modern devils and heretics.
Gibbs refers hesitantly to Philica as an outlet. He also mentions that Timothy Gowers supports the French CCDS initiative to create “epi-journals“, i.e. journals that harvest from the archives, but he also mentions that this has a dark side. CCDS restricts use to arXiv.org and French HAL, so they will not be able to use my work that is abused by arXiv.org.
PM 1. Gibbs rightly mentions that chess is not a universal result in mathematics. However, Elo-ranking in chess is a universal method to combine both compentence and challenge. When we turn peer review into a match between author and reviewer, then Elo-ranks for that field of enquiry might gain some stability. See Voting Theory for Democracy chapter 7 on Elo-ranking or the identical Rasch (Item Response) model (but no details on the review match idea). See here for my chess match with Vladimir Putin.
PM 2. Gibbs also mentions that mathematical results should be less controversial, since it is hard to argue with a proof. He mentions issues on Cantor and Gödel as exception. Perhaps he already thinks that EM / SM is excepted too ? On Cantor see my argument in favour of Occam, and on Gödel see my book A Logic of Exceptions.
PM 3. See Gibbs on love and math, and consider why math teachers tend to kill the love for mathematics: they are not aware that education is an empirical issue and that it requires empirical research rather than merely a math degree.
PM 4. Raymond Johnson – a PhD student and former math teacher of South Park High School in Colorado – has this comment:
“Robert’s last recommendation is to have a preprint server for math education research. As he notes, this is a road we’ve tried to go down before and we didn’t get very far. I don’t think the problem has nearly as much to do with policy or categories of the arXiv as it does with the lack of a “preprint culture” in mathematics education. What I learned in those previous preprint discussions, and in my observations as a developing scholar, is that math educators regularly and happily share work in progress — with a select group of people. In math ed, there doesn’t seem to be widespread faith in anything like Linus’ Law, the open source software dictum that says, “With enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” I think the math wars led to a lot of distrust, and some of it is very rational. It’s safer to only share preliminary work with a few scholars who share similar methods and theoretical frameworks, and then refine the work after peer review before publication in a journal whose readership is likely to understand the work. Maybe it shouldn’t be this way, but to move forward we’re going to have to confront some of these beliefs.” (RJ August 2014)
A problem here is that RJ might see too much “math war” where there isn’t one. He catalogs my criticism as such in his August 14 2014 blogtext. However my text is decent scientific criticism as you can verify here – and also check Elegance with Substance. It is unscientific that RJ did not made a correction in his blogtext after my email to him asking for a correction. He is a supporter of the “realistic mathematics education” approach, and one should expect that he looks into the discovery that it is a fraud. However, the fiction by Hans Freudenthal is to him like the words of Jesus for that other author.
It appears very difficult for abstract thinking mathematicians to face reality, especially those adhering to the unscientific cult of “realistic mathematics education”.