Is it ok to upload joke papers to arXiv?

Question

I have recently stumbled upon this paper on arXiv: Stopping GAN Violence: Generative Unadversarial Networks (mirror), which is a parody/joke paper.

Is it ok to upload joke papers to arXiv?

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Franck Dernoncourt

Comments

@Gallifreyan What do you mean?

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Franck Dernoncourt

---

That was a pun :P

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Gallifreyan

---

I am surprised (not unpleasantly...) to see such a long list of joke arxiv papers in the field of astrophysics. There are no joke arxiv papers in mathematics. Please correct me if I'm wrong....Pretty please?

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Pete L. Clark

---

@PeteL.Clark That is interesting because in mathematics "the genius of Proust is that which he produced" holds most acutely. You cannot B.S a proof to someone actually trying to read it.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Jacob Murray Wakem

---

I imported this as some parts of the answers are physics relevant or related ...

---

Only if you plan to publish it after in the Journal of Alternative Facts.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user VonBeche

---

To those in the know, "Under review as a conference paper at SIGBOVIK 2017" is also a strong indicator, SIGBOVIK being the Association for Computational Heresy's annual conference held on or around April 1 in in Pittsburgh.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Dougal

Answer 1

There is a long tradition of posting joke papers to arXiv on or around April Fool's Day, especially in astro-ph - see the list below. The fact that all these papers were approved for arXiv offers some evidence (though not proof) that joke papers are okay.

It's probably best to limit joke papers to around April 1, though, when people know to be on the lookout for this stuff - or at least provide some indicator which is very clear to experts in the field that the paper is a joke, such as listing it as being submitted to SIGBOVIK or the Annals of Improbable Research.

A history of arXiv joke papers

(mirrored on my website)

• Superiority of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory (LPL) over Steward Observatory (SO) at the University of Arizona (2002)
• On the Utter Irrelevance of LPL Graduate Students: An Unbiased Survey by Steward Observatory Graduate Students (2002)
• Cosmic Conspiracies (2006)
• Natural Dark Energy (2007)
• Down-sizing Forever (2008)
• Time variation of a fundamental dimensionless constant (2009)
• Galaxy Zoo: an unusual new class of galaxy cluster (2009)
• Orthographic Correlations in Astrophysics (2010)
• Schroedinger's Cat is not Alone (2010)
• Non-standard morphological relic patterns in the cosmic microwave background (2011)
• On the influence of the Illuminati in astronomical adaptive optics (2012)
• Gods as Topological Invariants (2012)
• The Proof of Innocence (2012)
• On the Ratio of Circumference to Diameter for the Largest Observable Circles: An Empirical Approach (2012)
• Non-detection of the Tooth Fairy at Optical Wavelengths (2012)
• Pareidolic Dark Matter (PaDaM) (2013)
• A search for direct heffalon production using the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (2013)
• Unidentified Moving Objects in Next Generation Time Domain Surveys (2013)
• Conspiratorial cosmology - the case against the Universe (2013)
• "Winter is coming" (2013)
• The CMB flexes its BICEPs while walking the Planck (2014)
• Bayesian Prediction for The Winds of Winter (2014)
• A Farewell to Falsifiability (2015)
• Astrology in the Era of Exoplanets (2016)
• An unexpected new explanation of seasonality in suicide attempts: Grey's Anatomy broadcasting (2016)
• Pi in the sky (2016)
• Stopping GAN Violence: Generative Unadversarial Networks (2017) (the example from the question, included for completeness)
• A Neural Networks Approach to Predicting How Things Might Have Turned Out Had I Mustered the Nerve to Ask Barry Cottonfield to the Junior Prom Back in 1997 (2017)
• On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)
• Sitnikov in Westeros: How Celestial Mechanics finally explains why winter is coming in Game of Thrones (2018)

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user David Z

Comments

(+1 for the list, thanks!) "when people know to be on the lookout for this stuff." -> I typically don't look at the exact date :-/

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user Franck Dernoncourt

---

@FranckDernoncourt Sure, but I think a lot of people do.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user David Z

---

@DavidZ It also makes life harder for text mining algorithms.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user Franck Dernoncourt

---

Goodness, that is a list. You seem to have missed Orthographic Correlations in Astrophysics, though, so I wonder what else is out there.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user E.P.

---

Another one for the list: Non-standard morphological relic patterns in the cosmic microwave background, from which Fig. 1 is particularly notable, together with its mention in the text just above it.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user E.P.

---

As another example there is also Donald Knuth's (quite hilarious) "The Complexity of Songs" which was published in ACM SIGACT - a quite serious and prestigious journal. So the tradition of posting joke papers does not just exist on arXiv but is a wider phenomenon at that.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user Voo

---

-1, because I was planning on using my time productively before seeing this. (+1!)

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user Nat

---

So how do non-experts know when they're reading a joke article? That sounds unprofessional and childish to me.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user Cape Code

---

@CapeCode Articles on arXiv are targeted at experts. Other people generally won't understand what they're reading whether it's a joke or not.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user David Z

---

I can't tell if they are joke or not.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user HelloWorld

---

The best joke paper of all times is Gates, V., et al. "Stuperspace." Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 15.1-2 (1985): 289-293. The published version is available here: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167278985901733 and a free e-copy from here: languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/Stuperspace.pdf. It predates arXiv.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user ZeroTheHero

Answer 2

The arXiv (pronounced "archive")is a repository of electronic preprints, known as e-prints, of scientific papers in the fields of mathematics, physics, astronomy, computer science, quantitative biology, statistics, and quantitative finance, which can be accessed online.

So, please do not upload joke papers. These papers are not helping the community, and they are not helping the authors of such papers.

Having said that, if the paper has any scientific value, even if it is a funny paper, then it is more than welcome. TCS has a conference called FUN with algorithms the purpose of which is to publish amusing papers with certain algorithmic flavor.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user PsySp

Comments

@PsySp: It wasn't intended as a personal comment, but if it came across that way then I apologise. That said, I do think there's a need to distinguish between entertaining papers written by researchers in a field for the amusement of other researchers in the field (which to my mind are, and should be, welcome on arXiv, if not to excess), and spam papers that have nothing to do with the field in question, or contain junk text. In this case, the authors are serious guys writing under their own names, who've put effort into making the paper entertaining to their community.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Stuart Golodetz

---

It's actually not so easy to do well, and it's somewhat risky if (as in the case of one of the guys) you're well-known in the field - in this case, I think they've judged it carefully and got the balance right.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Stuart Golodetz

---

@StuartGolodetz My opinion is that a joke paper, published under Machine Learning tag, is borderline qualified for spam. There are many other places where such a paper would be more appreciated and could potentially invoke less inconveniences. Because, sometimes, it's hard to judge if it's a clear joke or not.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user PsySp

---

@PsySp: I think it's subjective - let's move on.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Stuart Golodetz

---

@StuartGolodetz If you are well-known but take your reputation lightly then it is not very risky. Well-known people are HARDER to get sacked, not easier!

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Jacob Murray Wakem

---

@JeffE please post your own answer?

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user smci

---

@JeffE A good recipe to receove something like my last "Our volunteer moderators determined that your article does not contain sufficient original or substantive research to merit inclusion within arXiv. Resubmission of removed papers may result in the loss of your submission privileges."

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Vladimir F

Answer 3

Uploading joke papers to arXiv does not violate arXiv policy, according to this email sent by the arXiv moderation:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: arXiv Moderation
Date: Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:38 PM
Subject: [moderation #189697] Removing a joke paper
To: spamme@gmail.com

Dear Spa,

We will not remove this paper as it does not violate any of our policies.

-- [retracted name]
arXiv moderation

On Sat Mar 11 18:27:47 2017, spamme@gmail.com wrote:

Dear arXiv-moderation,

This paper is a joke paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02528 (it was submitted to an April 1st joke conference: http://sigbovik.org/2017).

Could you please remove it from arXiv?

Best,
Spa Mme

This seems to be in contradiction with https://arxiv.org/help/moderation (mirror):

arXiv is distinct from the web as a whole, because arXiv contains exclusively scientific research content. Although arXiv is open to submissions from the scientific communities, our team has worked behind the scenes for a long time to ensure the quality of our content.

arXiv moderators will suggest the removal of a submission that violates arXiv policies in some way. Potential reasons for removal are: Inappropriate format. arXiv accepts only submissions in the form of an article that would be refereeable by a conventional publication venue. This excludes […] papers that contain inflammatory or fictitious content, papers that use highly dramatic and mis-representative titles/abstracts/introductions.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user Franck Dernoncourt

Comments

That might be slightly surprising. In ArXiv moderation system page we read: "arXiv is distinct from the web as a whole, because arXiv contains exclusively scientific research content." and "arXiv is an openly accessible, moderated repository for scholarly papers in specific scientific disciplines. Material submitted to arXiv is expected to be of interest, relevance, and value to those disciplines. arXiv reserves the right to reject or reclassify any submission." I wonder why ArXiv moderators classify clear joke papers as scholarly papers with scientific content.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user PsySp

---

@PsySp Yes I was surprised too (and disappointed). I wonder what it takes to be an arXiv-approved joke.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user Franck Dernoncourt

---

Maybe these excerpts from the Moderation page of ArXiv should be added to your answer because it seem they directly contradict the answer you received from the moderator! arxiv.org/help/moderation (It is even in bold!)

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user PsySp

---

@PsySp Sounds good, added. Apparently a joke isn't fictitious content, but is scientific research content.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user Franck Dernoncourt

Answer 4

Also, realize that people have done this to real journals. Consider the Sokol hoax. Or the famous math paper about big game hunting mocking.

I would avoid doing it too much. And if it gets done too much it will damage the resource. That said, a little bit is kind of amusing. Especially if skillfully done. But some pepper is good...too much is bad.

This post imported from StackExchange Academia at 2020-01-20 16:20 (UTC), posted by SE-user guest