The situation is so annoying that at least one alternative exists.

https://vixra.org/why
____
Why viXra?

In 1991 the electronic e-print archive, now known as arXiv.org, was
founded at Los Alamos National Laboratories. In the early days of the
World Wide Web it was open to submissions from all scientific
researchers, but gradually a policy of moderation was employed to
block articles that the administrators considered unsuitable. In 2004
this was replaced by a system of endorsements to reduce the workload
and place responsibility of moderation on the endorsers. The stated
intention was to permit anybody from the scientific community to
continue contributing. However many of us who had successfully
submitted e-prints before then found that we were no longer able to.
Even those with doctorates in physics and long histories of
publication in scientific journals can no longer contribute to the
arXiv unless they can find an endorser in a suitable research
institution.

The policies of the administrators of Cornell University who now
control the arXiv are so strict that even when someone succeeds in
finding an endorser their e-print may still be rejected or moved to
the "physics" category of the arXiv where it is likely to get less
attention. Those who endorse articles that Cornell find unsuitable are
under threat of losing their right to endorse or even their own
ability to submit e-prints. Given the harm this might cause to their
careers it is no surprise that endorsers are very conservative when
considering articles from people they do not know. These policies are
defended on the arXiv's endorsement help page

A few of the cases where people have been blocked from submitting to
the arXiv have been detailed on the Archive Freedom website, but as
time has gone by it has become clear that Cornell has no plans to bow
to pressure and change their policies. Some of us now feel that the
time has come to start an alternative archive which will be open to
the whole scientific community. That is why viXra has been created.
viXra will be open to anybody for both reading and submitting
articles. We will not prevent anybody from submitting and will only
reject articles in extreme cases of abuse, e.g. where the work may be
vulgar, libellous, plagiaristic or dangerously misleading.

It is inevitable that viXra will therefore contain e-prints that many
scientists will consider clearly wrong and unscientific. However, it
will also be a repository for new ideas that the scientific
establishment is not currently willing to consider. Other perfectly
conventional e-prints will be found here simply because the authors
were not able to find a suitable endorser for the arXiv or because
they prefer a more open system. It is our belief that anybody who
considers themselves to have done scientific work should have the
right to place it in an archive in order to communicate the idea to a
wide public. They should also be allowed to stake their claim of
priority in case the idea is recognised as important in the future.

Many scientists argue that if arXiv.org had such an open policy then
it would be filled with unscientific papers that waste people's time.
There are problems with that argument. Firstly there are already a
high number of submissions that do get into the archive which many
people consider to be rubbish, but they don't agree on which ones they
are. If you removed them all, the arXiv would be left with only safe
papers of very limited interest. Instead of complaining about the
papers they don't like, researchers need to find other ways of
selecting the papers of interest to them. arXiv.org could help by
providing technology to help people filter the article lists they
browse.

It is also often said that the arXiv.org exclusion policies do not
matter because if an independent (or amateur) scientist were to make a
great discovery, it would certainly be noticed and recognised. Here
are three reasons why this argument is wrong and unhelpful. Firstly,
many independent scientists are just trying to do ordinary science.
They do not have to make the next great paradigm shift in science
before their work can be useful. Secondly, the best new ideas do not
follow from conventional research and it may take several years before
their importance can be appreciated. If such a discovery cannot be put
in a permanent archive it will be overlooked to the detriment of both
the author and the scientific community. Thirdly, it is not just
independent or amateur scientists that are having problems getting
access to repositories and the recognition they deserve.

Another argument is that anybody can submit their work to a journal
where it will get an impartial review. The truth is that most journals
are now more concerned with the commercial value of their impact
factor than with the advance of science. Papers submitted by anyone
without a good affiliation to a research institution find it very
difficult to publish. Their work is often returned with an unhelpful
note saying that it will not be passed on for review because it does
not meet the criteria of the journal.

The visual design of viXra.org (but not its content) is a parody of
arXiv.org to highlight Cornell University's unacceptable censorship
policy. Vixra is also an experiment to see what kind of scientific
work is being excluded by the arXiv. But most of all it is a serious
and permanent e-print archive for scientific work. Unlike arXiv.org it
is truly open to scientists from all walks of life. You can support
this project by submitting your articles.
____