RNAAS banned on arXiv

RNAAS banned on arXiv

by David Kipping

Humanities, Social Sciences & Thought Science — General & History PDScience: general issuesPDMScientific research
🎙 David Kipping 👥 1.1M 📅 December 13, 2018 ⏱ 17 min 👁 14K 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-08-26
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

arXivRNAASscientific publishingpeer reviewastronomy

Summary

The video discusses the decision by arXiv to ban submissions from the Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society (RNAAS), a new journal designed for rapid publication of short research notes. The host, David Kipping, explains the importance of arXiv for astronomers, noting that papers not posted there receive far less visibility. He describes his personal experience of having his RNAAS paper rejected from arXiv, despite it being accepted by the journal. He argues that arXiv’s stated reasons for the ban—that RNAAS content is not refereed and is too short—are inconsistent and not uniformly applied across other types of content on arXiv, such as white papers, conference proceedings, and even blog posts. He also points out that many important scientific papers have been very short. Kipping mentions that he and colleagues have organized an open letter to arXiv, which has gathered over 250 signatures, urging a reconsideration of the decision. He emphasizes that the astronomy community values arXiv and wants it to continue, but disagrees with this specific policy. The video concludes with an invitation for viewers to share their thoughts in the comments.

184 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The video provides valuable insight into a significant controversy in scientific publishing, from the perspective of an active researcher. The argumentation is well-structured: it establishes the central role of arXiv in astronomy, explains the purpose of RNAAS, details the ban, and then systematically critiques the reasons given by arXiv. The use of concrete examples (e.g., the citation advantage of arXiv-posted papers, the short length of Alfvén’s Nobel-winning paper) strengthens the argument. However, the presentation is one-sided, and the opposing view is only briefly acknowledged via a link in the description. The argument that RNAAS content is ‘refereeable’ is somewhat theoretical, and the video does not deeply explore potential downsides of a non-peer-reviewed journal being indexed on arXiv.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The video demonstrates scientific rigor by referencing specific studies (e.g., Schwarz & Kennicutt on citation advantage) and providing links to relevant sources in the description, including the arXiv blog post presenting the other side, the RNAAS homepage, and arXiv’s moderation policy. The title accurately reflects the content. The speaker’s personal involvement adds authenticity but also introduces potential bias. The video does not present a formal analysis of the issue but rather a well-reasoned opinion piece.

207 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the core topic: the ban of RNAAS articles on arXiv.

Quality & Reliability

7/10

The video presents a well-argued expert opinion from an astronomer directly involved in the controversy. It cites specific data (e.g., citation statistics, arXiv submission numbers) and provides links to primary sources. However, it is inherently subjective and represents one side of the debate, with the opposing view only linked in the description.

Key Moments

Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.

Cited Sources

  • arXiv blog: A brief note on short works — The opposing viewpoint from arXiv on the ban.
  • RNAAS homepage — Official page of the journal.
  • Physics Today article about RNAAS — Background on the journal's launch.
  • arXiv's moderation policy — Official policy on what is allowed.
  • arXiv's goals — Official statement of arXiv's mission.
  • Cool Worlds Lab website — Speaker's research lab.

Concurring Sources

  • arXiv blog: A brief note on short works — Provides the official arXiv perspective, which the video critiques.

Dissenting Sources

  • arXiv blog: A brief note on short works — Presents the opposing view, arguing that RNAAS content is not refereed and too short, which the video disputes.

External References

Contribution & Novelties

The video provides a first-hand account of a controversial policy decision by arXiv, offering a detailed critique from a practicing astronomer. It highlights the tension between arXiv’s role as a preprint server and its moderation policies, and raises questions about the definition of ‘refereeable’ content. The open letter mentioned is a concrete community action.

Pour aller plus loin :

  • arXiv — The repository at the center of the controversy.
  • Research Notes of the AAS — The journal affected by the ban.
  • Open access — The broader movement for free access to research.
  • Peer review — The traditional quality control mechanism in academic publishing.

103 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows high scores in information quantity and quality, reflecting the video's detailed and well-sourced discussion. The technical level is moderate, as it is accessible to a general audience but uses some specialized terminology. The overall reliability is good, though the subjective nature of the opinion piece slightly lowers it.

Reliability 7/10

💬 No comments were provided for analysis.