Here’s the revised formal complaint with the added language about federal funding and regulatory escalation, followed by an updated LinkedIn post: --- **Subject:** Formal Complaint Regarding arXiv’s Endorsement Policy and Barriers to Open Scientific Discourse **To:** Cornell University Library arXiv Administration Email: [email protected] **CC:** Office of the Provost, Cornell University Email: [email protected] **Dear arXiv Administration,** [... Existing body of the complaint, unchanged until the conclusion ...] # **Conclusion:** arXiv has long been a cornerstone of open scientific exchange, but its current policies risk alienating a significant portion of the research community. **Given arXiv’s reliance on federal and grant funding, including support from agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), I trust Cornell University will address these concerns promptly to ensure compliance with funding requirements.** Should this matter remain unresolved, I will escalate it to the relevant regulatory bodies, including the **NSF Office of Inspector General** and other oversight agencies. I request a formal response outlining the steps arXiv will take to address these concerns. Please provide a timeline for review or reforms by [insert date within 30 days]. **Sincerely,** Rowan Brad Quni Principal Investigator, QNFO Institute Email: [email protected] | [email protected] --- # **LinkedIn Post (Revised):** --- 🔬 **Breaking Down Barriers in Science: A Call for Reform at arXiv** 🔬 As a researcher committed to **open science**, I’m disappointed by arXiv’s endorsement policy, which excludes independent voices and reinforces academic gatekeeping. The requirement to secure endorsements from established users creates a **closed loop** that disadvantages researchers without institutional connections. This undermines arXiv’s mission to democratize knowledge. I’ve formally urged @Cornell University to replace this system with transparent, equitable quality controls. **Given arXiv’s reliance on federal funding (e.g., NSF grants), I’ve also notified relevant oversight agencies of the need for compliance with anti-discrimination and open-access principles.** Join me in advocating for: ✅ Objective submission criteria ✅ Support for independent researchers ✅ Post-publication peer review #OpenScience #ResearchEquity #arXiv #CornellUniversity #NSFFunding #BreakTheBarriers --- # **Key Additions Explained:** 1. **Federal Funding Reference:** - arXiv receives significant support from the **National Science Foundation (NSF)** and other federal agencies. By noting this, you emphasize Cornell’s obligation to comply with funding requirements tied to equity and open access. 2. **Escalation to Regulatory Bodies:** - **NSF Office of Inspector General (OIG):** Responsible for investigating misuse of NSF funds or violations of grant terms. - **Other Agencies:** If arXiv receives funding from the Department of Energy (DOE) or NIH, their OIGs could also be notified. 3. **LinkedIn Post:** - Publicly highlights the connection between federal funding and accountability, signaling that systemic issues could have broader consequences. This approach ensures your complaint underscores Cornell’s accountability to its funders while maintaining a professional tone.