-3
$\begingroup$

I recently posted a Phys.SE question based on: "spherical solutions to the Schrödinger equation" and had linked a research paper that formed a basis for my question. I was later informed via a comment by the moderator that the paper I had linked was from viXra.org, and that it was not a very reliable source for scientific research information.

So can anyone provide a list of acceptable(or unacceptable) sites which have reliable scientific papers, upon which questions can be based?

Here is what the founder of viXra has to say- click/touch here here

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Do you understand that being on vixra isn't a automatic demerit, but does cause initial skeptism? Do you understand why that is: why people are more wary of preprints on vixra than those on arxiv when without checking the metadata you can't assume that either have been peer reviewed? $\endgroup$ – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Nov 29 '16 at 18:56
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ rxiv.org is an alias for vixra? That is an underhanded, dishonest move, and knowingly linking to that alias is an act of deception. (That means, Naveen, that it's OK if you linked without knowing what the difference was - but don't do it again unless you fully understand the differences.) There's nothing inherently wrong with vixra, but trying to pretend that it is equivalent to arxiv, or passing it off as the same, is not the way to get any sort of credibility. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Nov 29 '16 at 23:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ For what it's worth, I don't think the question ACuriousMind linked to is off topic, and you could well undelete it if you want to. The answer is still (a) the spatial frequency doesn't change, and (b) it's perfectly OK for wavenumber to change from region to region (with light in glass or in water being one example), so it's not a particularly interesting question, but it's valid to ask it and it's within the normal confines of the site. (The parts you removed in v3, on the other hand, are not on topic.) $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Nov 29 '16 at 23:49
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty but if you rype R XIV on the net you are redirected to vrXra, and the site viXra has the World Wide Web address of rxiv.org. Thanks for answering my other the question ! $\endgroup$ – Spoilt Milk Nov 30 '16 at 2:59
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Naveen What I mean is that the use of rxiv is a pretty transparent attempt at a land grab. Vixra is trying to benefit from the much better reputation of arXiv, essentially by trying to fool people who don't know the difference. If you link to rxiv instead of directly to vixra, then it looks like you too are trying to fool people. Don't do it on this site: you can link to vixra, but label it clearly as such by linking to the main domain. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Nov 30 '16 at 11:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you want an analogy, it's like someone registered the domain physics.stackXchange.com, have it an SE-like interface, and then filled it with incorrect and unreliable information. In principle they can do that, but it's obviously an attempt to unfairly benefit from others' hard-won reputation. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Nov 30 '16 at 11:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 1. Compiling a list of reliable & unreliable sites seems to be out of scope. 2. Concerning OP's q 295580, it is not closed: OP is free to undelete it. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic♦ Nov 30 '16 at 12:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, I'm curious to know why the people who are voting to reopen this question are doing so. I really cannot see any way that it is about this site. $\endgroup$ – David Z Nov 30 '16 at 16:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DavidZ I voted to reopen the question because, well it's my question and also due to the reason- where else am I to ask this question? I sure cannot( and dare not) ask this on physicsSE, since the physics meta is a place to discuss how to improve the main site, I have asked this to be more cautious while linking an article from arbitrary research sites, thus not wasting my time asking questions from wrong papers and not wasting the time of the person answering and or commenting on it. $\endgroup$ – Spoilt Milk Nov 30 '16 at 17:13
  • $\begingroup$ Well, just because there's no other place to ask a question is not a reason to put it here. If you don't want to waste time asking questions from wrong papers, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with this site. Though if you wanted to know whether there was a set of acceptable (or unacceptable) preprint sites whose papers to base questions on, that would be on topic for meta. $\endgroup$ – David Z Nov 30 '16 at 17:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DavidZ isn't my question asking the same thing that you have mentioned? Anyway, I'll edit the question if that's ok. $\endgroup$ – Spoilt Milk Nov 30 '16 at 18:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No, it's not asking what I mentioned. At least, that's not how I read it. If what I mentioned is what you meant to ask, you should edit the question to make that clear. (Remember that editing is typically the expected response to a question being put on hold.) $\endgroup$ – David Z Nov 30 '16 at 18:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DavidZ I voted to reopen because this does have an answer: it's what Qmechanic stated, that providing such a list is out of scope - but also that "asks about a paper on viXra" is not immediate grounds for off-topic-ness, and indeed neither is "asks about a paper on arXiv" immediate grounds for on-topic-ness. Let's keep it easy on meta - this is a place for discussion. (And, in any case, the question is mostly on topic after the edit.) $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Nov 30 '16 at 23:22
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty Since when is "has an answer" our criteria for on-topicness? ;-) Even on meta. In any case, I agree that after the last edit, the question is on topic (though it could still be much more clearly written). $\endgroup$ – David Z Dec 1 '16 at 17:50
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Why is this reopened? OP (v5) still asks for a list, which is off-topic. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic♦ Dec 1 '16 at 19:27
4
$\begingroup$

There is no site policy that makes it unacceptable to link to papers, or to ask questions based on papers, from any particular source.

It's a short answer but that's really all there is to it.

There are sites that have higher or lower reputations in the research community, but meta is not the place to get into that. You could get a lot of information about it in chat, though.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .