arXiv Moderation Controversies: Is There Bias Against Independent Researchers and Non-PhD Authors?

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

In the world of academic publishing, arXiv stands as one of the most important preprint servers, especially in fields like mathematics, physics, and computer science. Researchers worldwide upload millions of papers to share discoveries quickly without traditional peer review delays. However, arXiv’s moderation and endorsement processes have sparked heated debates, particularly among independent researchers without formal academic affiliations or PhD credentials. Some critics argue these systems create unfair barriers, while arXiv maintains they ensure quality and prevent misuse.

This article explores arXiv’s policies, common rejection reasons, and claims of bias—especially relevant in Tel Aviv and Israel’s vibrant tech and math communities, where independent innovators often contribute outside traditional academia.

Understanding arXiv’s Moderation and Endorsement System

arXiv requires all submissions to pass moderation by volunteer experts with terminal degrees. Moderators check for topical relevance, scholarly standards, originality, and absence of issues like plagiarism or non-scientific content. Even papers published in peer-reviewed journals can face rejection if deemed lacking “sufficient original or substantive scholarly research” or “unrefereeable.”

For many categories, including mathematics, first-time submitters need endorsement. Recent updates (as of late 2025 and early 2026) tightened rules: automatic endorsement often requires an institutional email and prior arXiv authorship in the relevant domain. Without these, personal endorsement from an established arXiv author in the same field is necessary. arXiv staff do not provide endorsements.

Independent researchers frequently report difficulties obtaining endorsements, as endorsers risk reputational issues if supporting controversial or low-quality work. This creates a catch-22: without arXiv presence, gaining recognition to secure endorsement becomes harder.

Common Reasons for arXiv Rejections and Appeals

Rejections often cite lack of novelty, significance, or refereeability. Appeals are possible but final decisions rarely reverse, with no detailed feedback provided. Some cases involve reclassification to less prestigious categories like gen-ph instead of specialized ones.

Critics point to opacity: moderators make rapid decisions without full peer review, sometimes leading to perceived unfairness. Stories from established professors and students highlight occasional errors, while independent voices claim systemic exclusion.

No public evidence supports claims of deliberate discrimination based on PhD status alone. However, policies favoring institutional affiliations and prior arXiv history indirectly disadvantage non-traditional researchers.

The Case of Independent Discoveries and Fringe Claims

Some independent scholars, like those proposing novel frameworks in general topology or analysis, face repeated rejections despite journal publications. For instance, work on “discontinuous analysis”—an approach claiming enhanced calculus for discontinuous functions—has appeared in peer-reviewed outlets but struggled elsewhere. Proponents argue such innovations challenge norms and deserve dissemination, viewing barriers as stifling progress.

Critics of arXiv sometimes use strong language, labeling moderation “elitist” or exclusionary toward “non-PhD” contributors. Comparisons to discriminatory systems appear in forums, though no widespread evidence ties arXiv to ideological extremism like fascism. Instead, issues stem from quality control efforts amid rising submissions, including AI-generated content.

arXiv’s policies evolve to address abuse while preserving openness. Yet, for Israel’s independent math and tech innovators, these hurdles highlight tensions between gatekeeping and inclusive science.

Alternatives for Independent Researchers

Rejected authors can explore other preprint servers like viXra (designed for non-endorsed work), Zenodo, or journal-friendly repositories. Peer-reviewed publication remains key for credibility, as seen with articles in journals like the Journal of Advances in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics.

Building networks—attending conferences in Tel Aviv or collaborating online—may help secure endorsements over time.

Final Thoughts

arXiv’s system prioritizes community standards over unrestricted access, sparking valid debates about equity. While not “fascist,” its endorsement and moderation can feel exclusionary to outsiders. True breakthroughs, regardless of author’s credentials, advance science best through transparent, merit-based channels.

For researchers in Israel facing similar issues, focusing on journal validation and community engagement offers practical paths forward.