Register to reply 
Rejecta Mathematica 
Share this thread: 
#1
Nov2107, 08:25 PM

P: 2,157




#2
Nov2107, 09:45 PM

P: 2,050

the FAQ says it isn't a joke..



#3
Nov2107, 10:08 PM

P: 2,157




#4
Nov2207, 03:26 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 2,340

Rejecta Mathematica
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 (mathrelated) 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 recent comments 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. 


#5
Nov2207, 05:19 PM

P: 2,050




#6
Nov2307, 12:33 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 2,340




#7
Nov2307, 02:01 AM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 3,684




#8
Nov2307, 04:04 AM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 9,396

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
Nov2307, 06:59 AM

P: 406

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 miniweb 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. 


#10
Aug809, 04:23 AM

P: 399

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 Peerreview system due to a lack of rigor in their results กก , and we are talking about two of the best mathematicians in history



Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Mathematica help.  Math & Science Software  9  
Mathematica 6.0 Changes Everything  Math & Science Software  37  
Mathematica Help  Math & Science Software  5  
Where can I download Mathematica  Math & Science Software  3  
Mathematica bug?  Math & Science Software  5 