The microblog: 2016.05.27 00:33:57

2016.05.27 00:33:57 (735962204080594944) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Anna Lysyanskaya (@AnnaLysyanskaya)" (735890220357419008):

We've collected a pile of actual quotes from the eprint censors, totally out of whack with posted rules. @AnnaLysyanskaya @nikitab @benadida


2016.05.26 16:40:33 (735843066959929347) from "Ben Adida (@benadida)", replying to "Anna Lysyanskaya (@AnnaLysyanskaya)" (735839255868678148):

maybe worth publishing a clear policy of what gets to be on eprint and who decides?

2016.05.26 16:48:34 (735845087259860992) from "Anna Lysyanskaya (@AnnaLysyanskaya)", replying to "Ben Adida (@benadida)" (735843066959929347):

Been there all along: . 95% of subs get in; a sub just needs to look like a research paper.

2016.05.26 19:40:16 (735888296421773313) from "nikita borisov (@nikitab)", replying to "Anna Lysyanskaya (@AnnaLysyanskaya)" (735845087259860992):

a lot of room for interpretation there; arguably any rejected CRYPTO paper fails @ 1 of the criteria

2016.05.26 19:47:55 (735890220357419008) from "Anna Lysyanskaya (@AnnaLysyanskaya)", replying to "nikita borisov (@nikitab)" (735888296421773313):

Yes, editors interpret the rules as best they can. But they don't make up sinister new ones, as @hashbreaker claimed.