107

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?

Franck Dernoncourt
  • 33,669
  • 27
  • 144
  • 313
  • 39
    viXra would be a better place for joke papers. – Antonio Vargas Mar 12 '17 at 00:08
  • 30
    I think it is okay when the paper is extremely funny, like the one you have linked. – Avery Mar 12 '17 at 01:43
  • 11
    OK, according to whom? – Mad Jack Mar 12 '17 at 02:28
  • 11
    @MadJack arXiv policy. – Franck Dernoncourt Mar 12 '17 at 02:54
  • 2
    It is interesting to observe that the cultural split in the answers here, between Oh April Fools Day is all good fun! and This just creates a mess that impacts other people., is the same as at Wikipedia. – JdeBP Mar 12 '17 at 09:56
  • 9
    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. – Danica Mar 12 '17 at 16:37
  • 9
    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? – Pete L. Clark Mar 13 '17 at 20:40
  • 1
    @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. – Jacob Murray Wakem Apr 05 '17 at 00:23

6 Answers6

151

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 Acta Prima Aprilia, SIGBOVIK, or the Annals of Improbable Research.

A history of arXiv joke papers

(mirrored-ish on my website)

Note: since this has become what I think is the most comprehensive list of arXiv joke papers I know of, I've made it community wiki so anyone can add to the list. Any additions should be clearly joke papers and, in keeping with the topic of the question, must be posted on arXiv.

David Z
  • 7,931
  • 3
  • 34
  • 51
  • 2
    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. – Voo Mar 12 '17 at 21:11
  • 22
    -1, because I was planning on using my time productively before seeing this. (+1!) – Nat Mar 13 '17 at 01:58
  • 4
    So how do non-experts know when they're reading a joke article? That sounds unprofessional and childish to me. – Cape Code Mar 14 '17 at 13:22
  • 8
    @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. – David Z Mar 15 '17 at 14:19
  • 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: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167278985901733 and a free e-copy from here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/Stuperspace.pdf. It predates arXiv. – ZeroTheHero Apr 08 '18 at 00:29
  • 1
    Not on arXiv, but relevant: Another article that makes bibliometric analysis a bit harder – E.P. Feb 10 '23 at 16:24
  • @DavidZ Does https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.17060 count as "clearly a joke"? After all, it's making fun of practices that apparently made it past referees of Nature and Science. – Anyon Jun 30 '23 at 15:18
  • @Anyon Hmmm, good question... I read the paper and it does have some telltale signs of being intended as a joke, but it wasn't actually clear to me that it was a joke. Or maybe I should say I didn't get it. I mean, part of what typically makes a good joke paper is that it's funny even to non-experts. But that is not part of my stated criteion. So I'm on the fence about including that one, but I think if someone well versed in Majorana research can confirm that they would consider it clearly a joke, I'd put it on the list. – David Z Jul 01 '23 at 21:25
43

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: [email protected]

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, [email protected] wrote:

Dear arXiv-moderation,

<p>This paper is a joke paper: <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02528" rel="noreferrer">https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02528</a> (it was
submitted to an April 1st joke conference: <a href="http://sigbovik.org/2017" rel="noreferrer">http://sigbovik.org/2017</a>).</p>

<p>Could you please remove it from arXiv?</p>

<p>Best,<BR/>
Spa Mme</p>

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.

Franck Dernoncourt
  • 33,669
  • 27
  • 144
  • 313
  • 8
    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.

     – PsySp Mar 14 '17 at 10:29
  • 4
    @PsySp Yes I was surprised too (and disappointed). I wonder what it takes to be an arXiv-approved joke. – Franck Dernoncourt Mar 14 '17 at 16:19
  • 1
    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! https://arxiv.org/help/moderation (It is even in bold!) – PsySp Mar 14 '17 at 16:31
  • 1
    @PsySp Sounds good, added. Apparently a joke isn't fictitious content, but is scientific research content. – Franck Dernoncourt Mar 14 '17 at 16:36
42

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.

PsySp
  • 7,901
  • 6
  • 34
  • 58
  • 1
    @FranckDernoncourt I mean, in case the authors use their real names (which I doubt). In any case I do not see why anybody would want to create noise as you say. – PsySp Mar 11 '17 at 23:57
  • 62
    I'm an arXiv moderator, and I disagree with this answer. – JeffE Mar 12 '17 at 02:36
  • 90
    @JeffE please post your own answer? – smci Mar 12 '17 at 03:14
  • 6
    @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." – Vladimir F Героям слава Mar 12 '17 at 10:44
  • 1
    @smci I have added an email sent by the arXiv moderation as an answer. – Franck Dernoncourt Mar 13 '17 at 16:18
  • @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. – Stuart Golodetz Mar 14 '17 at 09:36
  • 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. – Stuart Golodetz Mar 14 '17 at 09:38
  • 6
    @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. – PsySp Mar 14 '17 at 09:51
  • @PsySp: I think it's subjective - let's move on. – Stuart Golodetz Mar 14 '17 at 12:11
  • @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! – Jacob Murray Wakem Apr 05 '17 at 00:54
2

Also, realize that people have done this to real journals. Consider the Sokol hoax. Or the famous math paper about big game hunting mocking. Or the more subtle Physical Review Letter co-author F. D. C. Willard

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.

uhoh
  • 3,152
  • 13
  • 31
guest
  • 45
  • 1
1

I consider the paper "An Explicit Conjectured Determinant Evaluation Whose Proof Would Make Me Happy (and the OEIS richer)" by Doron Zeilberger a joke paper, or at least a troll paper.

There are no false statements or non-research in the paper. The issue is that Zeilberger (cleverly) hides the fact that a solution to his problem also solves the very famous Collatz conjecture. So people trying to solve the problem stated in his paper are very likely to waste their time on a problem that is way harder than it seems.

On the other hand, there could be a George Dantzig moment a solution is easier found if one believes that the problem is solvable. Dantzig famously mistook two open problems in statistics for class homework, and turned in the solutions a few days later.

Per Alexandersson
  • 4,957
  • 1
  • 20
  • 27
0

It does happen, but there are also humorous journals you may also submit to, especially if it is satirical as the Annals of Improbable research will only accept real research that's funny.

I ran across this because I maintain one, The Journal of Astrological Big Data Ecology (Jabde.com) where we also host The Journal of Immaterial Science which tends to involve more chemistry humor. If anyone runs across this, we always accept paper submissions and do actually publish the really good ones.

B McGraw
  • 11