I just so happened to stumble upon a very interesting comment on arXiv’s moderation issues (certainly more interesting than the original blog article). I could not agree more with the commenter. It is almost exactly like what I would like to write about the issue but probably not as well as the anonymous commenter articulated. In particular, I made similar comparisons between science and business; startup companies vs. researchers with risky/novel scientific ideas, etc. I can not help but fully quote the comment here,
Unknown11:44 PM, January 30, 2016
Dear Sabine,From an anonymous commenter on Sabine Hossenfelder’s old blog article
I am not sure if the paper being wrong is the problem and that more money for the arxiv is the solution.
Of course, the arxiv must protect itself from abuse. Submissions by crackpots, cranks and trolls have no place on the arxiv.
But I also very much agree with Nicolas, and I believe with many other colleagues, that when trained young physicists make an honest effort and submit their work to the arxiv, then the arxiv ought to accept their submissions – even if experienced moderators feel that they can tell right away that the paper’s approach is not going to work. Moderators have little time to scan a paper, aren’t infallible, and young researchers can be prone to executing and/or presenting even good ideas poorly.
Therefore, I too believe that we should let them get their work out on the scientific marketplace of ideas as fast as anybody else’s and without prejudice, i.e., let them post their papers on the arxiv. (Sure, they could submit it to vixra but then that would prejudice referees.)
Of course, almost all young researchers with ideas that are disruptive if they work out will fail, just like startup companies. There aren’t many Googles and Facebooks. But does the economy need “moderators” from the chamber of commerce to decide which proposed startup company should get a business license and which not, on the basis of perceived chances of success? Of course not. The requirements for a business licence are minimal. And they are minimal for a good reason: while it is the founders who carry the risk, we all benefit when some of them succeed.
Similarly, young researchers who want to post potentially disruptive ideas know very well that they risk their scientific career. These are brave souls and we should give them a chance. If they put their name on a paper that turns out to be wrong or turns out not to find interest, then they very personally carry the risk. But we all reap the benefits when some of them succeed.
It is in the nature of things that young researchers can maximize their chances to succeed in an academic career by working in the mainstream, preferably in a currently “hot” part of it, because that’s where the referees, the mentors, the citations and the grants are. That’s good because hot topics tend to be hot for a good reason. But working in a hot topic research area is the opposite of challenging the status quo. It’s like working for a hot company like Google instead of founding a new startup to revolutionize the way things are done.
I think it is therefore in the interest of science that the arxiv accepts all submissions by properly educated young researchers who make an honest research effort. Experienced moderators should be able to quickly distinguish them from crackpots, cranks and trolls, and be lenient if there is a grey zone. The task of the all-important peer review is better left with the journals: The arxiv is neither equipped nor is it incentivized to do a professional job at refereeing. The journals are much more likely to do a good job at refereeing because their survival depends on it.