How arXiv recognizes quackery.

[PB666]

http://backreaction.blogspot.ca/2016/05/the-holy-grail-of-crackpot-filtering.html

Quote

“The first thing I noticed was that every once in a while the classifier would spit something out as ‘I don't know what category this is’ and you’d look at it and it would be what we’re calling this fringe stuff. That quite surprised me. How can this classifier that was tuned to figure out category be seemingly detecting quality?

This is so dead spot on.

 

[sevenperforce]

Like, like, like, quadruple-like.

[insert_name]

Could someone create a search engine that did that, that would be useful.

[YNM]

If you have a search engine that does the same and still generate profit you'd get worse things. (I mean, ads.)

[John JACK]

Basically, if you read something and think "that mulch doesn't make any sense", that means it's really is mulch that doesn't make any sense?

[PB666]

5 hours ago, John JACK said:

Basically, if you read something and think "that mulch doesn't make any sense", that means it's really is mulch that doesn't make any sense?

Yeah but you're not forced to read it. Its easy to reject a paper but the biggest kooks put up the biggest protests.
So then you have to give them a reason why other than this is complete bunk.
There's a problem that most journals make money off what they publish, never off what they reject; something called page charges and also publication deadlines (don't ask its complicated). 
So then the editorial office becomes a bit like a baby-sitter, trying to get mulch-writer to correct English construction so that he/she can get referees,
Then if its rejected its the referees fault. Surprisingly when they correct the construction, alot get accepted, that is because good English construction benefits the logic of the argument, so that it sounds more logical and is more readable.  The manuscripts I see are nothing like the papers you read, mulch goes in and flowers come out.

"Please have someone who is familiar in technical English review your manuscript and have someone assist you in revising your manuscript"

BTW if you ever write a paper, or even a letter to someone, once you finished, put it down and don't look at it for a month, then read it again. Time is a beautiful thing when it comes to proofing construction and logic.

 

 

 

[LordFerret]

Interesting article. Too bad the 2nd sentence, right off the bat, the author / editor / proof-reader didn't catch.

Quote

It’s is a question philosophers have debated for as long as there’s been science –