• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,064 questions , 2,215 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,731 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Review section: limitations

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

I think that the reviews should not have to be limited to papers on the arXiv, but it should be possible to review entries on serious blogs, videos of talks, books, etc.

However, i do not know whether or not there should be some sort of limitation. For example, should reviews of entries on non-serious blogs or newspapers be allowed? If yes, what is the best and most objective way to discriminate between serious and non-serious science?

asked Mar 20, 2014 in Public Official Posts by drake (885 points) [ no revision ]
recategorized May 31, 2014 by dimension10

There's no way to distinguish between serious and non-serious physics. We should keep the reviews section limited to physics research papers and other stuff on the arxiv. Importing from journal databasesor ViXrA should be allowed too. 

OK. Then only journals, arXiv, and ViXrA. It wouldn't be possible to review a video of a recent important seminar, right?

@drake No, I think you're right actually, probably important seminars, conferences and conference proceedings should also be allowed.   

1 Answer

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

As this has obtained the required number of community votes, consider this an official PhysicsOverflow policy.

I see that this is a good point. After all, even the ArXiV has lecture notes, etc., which are not really "original" in nature.

When reviewing things like blog articles, lecture notes, etc., there is no "originality" in them. This is not necessarily a problem since the formula for overall score is 

\(x= \mathfrak{S} \exp\left( \sqrt[3]{\frac{\mathfrak{\times}}{5}} \right) \)

So, even if the originality is 0, which it usually is, the overall score will just be the accuracy score.  

I don't think newspapers should get reviewed, for obvious reasons. 

Not even blog articles. It is difficult to make an objective criteria between a real physics blog and a troll one. Some are extremely debatable. Also, many blogs are devoted to reviewing themselves.       

Great blogs, such as TRF, are not necessarily devoted only to physics. TRF for example is also about politics, and so on. Now, the bot doesn't know that Barrack Obama is a politician, or that Joseph Polchinski is a physicist. 

So, in conclusion, it is safe to import research papers, review papers, conference papers (from their proceedings), and seminars. The sources can be ArXiV, ViXrA, journal databases, proceedings, wherever. Direct uploads aren't supported yet. 

answered Mar 21, 2014 by dimension10 (1,985 points) [ revision history ]
edited Apr 8, 2015 by dimension10

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights