Rejecta Mathematica: Exploring Mathematical Rejection

  • Mathematica
  • Thread starter Count Iblis
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Mathematica
In summary: One possible solution would be for journals to charge only for publication, not for access to the articles. Another would be for the authors to pay for the privilege of having their articles edited and refereed. The current system has two major flaws - expense and time - as well as other minor ones, which would be tolerable if it weren't for the time issue. It's also worth noting that the system is not perfect. For example, the process of refereeing can be quite slow, and sometimes papers are accepted for publication without having had their correctness checked.The current system has two major flaws - expense and time - as well as other minor ones, which would be toler
  • #1
Count Iblis
1,863
8
http://math.rejecta.org/" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
the FAQ says it isn't a joke..
 
  • #3
cesiumfrog said:
the FAQ says it isn't a joke..

Yes, it is serious. I was trying to get information about the journal "Journal of Combinatorial Theory-Series A". I submitted a paper to that journal some time ago and I haven't heard from them since, soI was wondering how much time they take to review a paper (I'm more familiar to publishing in physics journals than in math journals). Anyway, to my horror http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/RefTipesh.html" [Broken] :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
SOMETHING here is somewhat horrifying, but maybe not the editorial decisions

Hmm... I probably would have rejected the book also, which to my mind reads like notes for a first draft rather than a first draft. As for the paper on enumerating tilings, I agree that algorithms have value but generally one submits a paper on an algorithm to a journal which specializes in (math-related) computer algebra or "experimental mathematics", but his paper seemed a bit slender to me in comparison to others I've seen at such journals.

BTW, such complaints may be moot since numerous pundits fortell the Death of the Book within a few decades if not before (see for example http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/11/19/1/a-conversation-with-amazon-com-ceo-jeff-bezos by Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, who was interviewed on "The Charlie Rose Show"), and others fortell the Death of the Scientific Paper. I find these prospects horrifying and am curious if anyone else feels strongly either way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Chris Hillman said:
fortell the Death of the Book [..and..] Scientific Paper. I find these prospects horrifying

Realistically, though an acceptable technology may still be a good few decades away, it seems reasonable that an electronic paper will eventually replace the pulping of trees for most purposes. I can't imagine that this would ever deter the production of scientific research articles (even if their precise format were to progress slightly.. certainly, when an experimentalist gives a talk, an embedded movie taken in the lab conveys something that ordinary overheads may not).
 
  • #6
cesiumfrog said:
Realistically, though an acceptable technology may still be a good few decades away, it seems reasonable that an electronic paper will eventually replace the pulping of trees for most purposes.

I agree, but I worry that this may be forced to happen before the technology has matured. Booklovers know that paper books with a good index really are a wonderful and hard-to-beat technology for information storage and retrieval (random access, portability, and as even Bezos concedes is a criterion for some humans, reading outdoors in natural light, or reading in bed).

cesiumfrog said:
I can't imagine that this would ever deter the production of scientific research articles (even if their precise format were to progress slightly..

Not that alone. There was a discussion of the changing face of scientific publication recently in The Scientist. Many amateurs (mostly cranks IMO) are calling for the dismantling of peer review, which I think would be a disaster, and due to the utter disarray of professionally published journals (prices have gotten really outrageous in some but certainly not all cases), this might come to pass. Particularly since there are powerful forces calling for the dismantling of the university itself, and even for the dismantling of Big Science.

cesiumfrog said:
certainly, when an experimentalist gives a talk, an embedded movie taken in the lab conveys something that ordinary overheads may not).

Yes, but I like to have something I can keep, refer to, and study under a variety of circumstances.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Chris Hillman said:
I agree, but I worry that this may be forced to happen before the technology has matured. Booklovers know that paper books with a good index really are a wonderful and hard-to-beat technology for information storage and retrieval (random access, portability, and as even Bezos concedes is a criterion for some humans, reading outdoors in natural light, or reading in bed).

As much as I like paper, I must admit I've taken rather rapidly to computerized references. Full-text searching (albeit imperfect, either because the text is scanned or simply because it's essentially impossible to search inside formulas) really does make my life easier.

Chris Hillman said:
Many amateurs (mostly cranks IMO) are calling for the dismantling of peer review, which I think would be a disaster, and due to the utter disarray of professionally published journals (prices have gotten really outrageous in some but certainly not all cases), this might come to pass.

Heaven forbid!
 
  • #8
Personally, I'm against the current peer review system in mathematics, and the importance some place upon it. But I emphasise the word current. The current system has two major flaws - expense and time - as well as other minor ones, which would be tolerable if it weren't for the time issue.

Some journals are expensive to buy. But more than that, they cost a lot of man hours in terms of (unpaid) editorship and refereeing. I don't know what the profit margin is on them, but none of the money is seen by those who do the hard work.

Then there is the time issue - several months, a year or more in some cases, before you hear back. When you remember who actually has to do the work, this is not surprising, but it isn't exactly a point in its favour.

Everyone has their anecdotes about acceptance criteria, which we don't need to go into here, as well. But at the end of a prolonged wait you get a referees report of variable use. And correctness of the paper is not one of the things that has to be commented on, which many people seem to forget; there is a reason why the Clay Institute requires an 18 month period to elapse after publication before they hand out a prize.

A trend I have noticed, and an unfortunate one at that, is that of splitting up one good paper into several smaller ones. This often increases the chance of acceptance, increases the number of publications on your cv, and increases the number of citations you get. All of which is good for playing the game of getting funding, but isn't necessarily defensible.

There do seem to be moves to take back the journal system. I can think of several new journals which don't have big publishing houses running them. They are properly run by and for academics. Dealing with them seems to mean faster turn around, and they put papers on the web as soon as they're accepted.
 
  • #9
Chris Hillman said:
BTW, such complaints may be moot since numerous pundits fortell the Death of the Book within a few decades if not before (see for example http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/11/19/1/a-conversation-with-amazon-com-ceo-jeff-bezos by Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, who was interviewed on "The Charlie Rose Show"), and others fortell the Death of the Scientific Paper. I find these prospects horrifying and am curious if anyone else feels strongly either way.

Books aren't going anywhere. There's no computer terminal, or software that can surpass the readability of bound paper. Books are simple, easy on the eyes and still (somewhat) cheap. It's also rare to find a resource online that is as comprehensive as a textbook. Books are king and will almost certainly remain so, though there's an outside chance that technologies like e-paper might change their appearance.

As to the death of the scientific paper, this too seems unlikely. However, I for one would like to see the death of the current scientific paper regime, whereby papers are put under lock and key by greedy publishers.

One thing the scientific paper might benefit from is a move from a format to be printed, to a format for the web. Instead of publishing a paper in a form meant to be printed off, writers could instead write a kind of mini-web site, i.e. a series of webpages that journals would put online. This would have the advantage of being able to include things like movies, or simulations, or code in a hyperlinked format. Then again, as mentioned above, people like their printed pages.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
i would support 'Peer review' but only to check that paper is correct , the problem with people evaluating papers is that some personal convictions could yield to rejection of paper Euler or Ramanujan (to citate someone) could NOT pass Peer-review system due to a lack of rigor in their results ¡¡ , and we are talking about two of the best mathematicians in history
 

1. What is "Rejecta Mathematica" and why is it significant?

"Rejecta Mathematica" is a collection of rejected mathematical papers that were submitted to various journals. It is significant because it sheds light on the rejection process in the field of mathematics and allows for the exploration of rejected ideas and theories.

2. Who compiled the collection and how were the rejected papers selected?

The collection was compiled by mathematicians Paul Erdős and John Horton Conway. They selected the papers based on their own experiences with rejection in the mathematical community and through recommendations from colleagues.

3. What can we learn from studying rejected mathematical papers?

Studying rejected mathematical papers can provide insights into the publishing process in the field of mathematics, as well as the reasons for rejection. It can also offer a glimpse into the development and evolution of mathematical theories, as rejected ideas may eventually be accepted in the future.

4. Are there any notable papers or theories that were initially rejected but later accepted?

Yes, there are several notable examples. One is the famous Four Color Theorem, which was rejected multiple times before being proven by Kenneth Appel and Wolfgang Haken in 1976. Another is the concept of fractals, which was initially rejected by mainstream mathematics but later gained recognition and significance in the field.

5. How does the rejection process in mathematics differ from other fields?

The rejection process in mathematics is often more rigorous and selective compared to other fields. This is because mathematical proofs require a higher level of precision and accuracy, and any error can invalidate the entire proof. Additionally, the peer review process in mathematics involves experts in the specific field of the paper, making it more specialized and thorough.

Similar threads

  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top