Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

academic access accounts act added advice ams archive archives article articles arxiv attention author authors binfield boards boycott catalogue category choosing comments conference contribute copyright cost culture cultures dates demo discussion easy editing editorial el electronic elsevier evaluation failures farflung filterthenpublish finding flatrate forum forums fun funded funding future good guardian high improvements incentives incentivizing increase initiative internet invoved jan jimmy journal journals jstor judgment language launch leaves letter list math mathematical mathematicians mathematics mathscinet naschie nature network news notices open outsourcing paper papers pay peer peerj peerreview peter philosophy; plos point practice practices problems proceedings producing production professionallearned public published publisher publishers publishing publishthenfilter quality read real recover referee refereeing referees regions register repository research review rights scanning scholarly science scientific selected slowly societies society spam spn spreading springer start starting submissions support theory typesetting unesco university utopia wales wanted ways web week wiki word work 20 1978 2012

1. • Discussion Type
   • discussion topicSelected papers network
   • Category Selected Papers Network
   • Started by John Baez
   • Comments 94
   • Last comment by Mike Shulman
   • Last Active Mar 26th 2012

   • Chris Lee and Marc Harper want to implement some of the ideas described here:

     • Chris Lee, Open peer review by a selected-papers network.

     I’m going to help them, and we’d like to know if you want to help, too.

     Lee and Harper are good at programming, but their plan is to start something quickly and improve it later as people start to use it and give feedback. So, your feedback is welcome now… but the focus should be on keeping it simple and flexible, not on detailed fine-tuning or fancy features.

     Also, if you dislike the general idea of this system, I urge you to spend your energy developing a different one yourself. Rather than seeking universal consenus, we need a healthy dissensus in which different groups of people develop different systems, so we can see which ones work.

2. • Discussion Type
   • discussion topicSPN: Doesn't "Peer Evaluation" already do this?
   • Category Selected Papers Network
   • Started by Ben Webster
   • Comments 6
   • Last comment by pmelchior
   • Last Active Mar 4th 2012

   • Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but it sure looks to me like the SPN already exists, and (surprise!) doesn’t have any mathematicians using it. It has a horrible name, and a bit more emphasis on social media than I would like, but Peer Evaluation sure looks like it hits all the important points as described in Chris’s paper. I’m sure if other mathematicians started using it, it would quickly be a great and useful site, but not many people are there yet (as far as I could tell, a few mathematicians have signed up, but no one has yet to write a review of anyone else’s article).

3. • Discussion Type
   • discussion topicSPN - Should all discussion threads correspond to a single arXiv paper?
   • Category Selected Papers Network
   • Started by kwalker
   • Comments 25
   • Last comment by Andrew Stacey
   • Last Active Mar 1st 2012

   • (This is intended to be a more narrowly focused offshoot of this thread.)

     Henry Cohn suggested (here and here, and perhaps elsewhere too) that it should be possible to have discussion threads on the proposed site which do not correspond to a single arXiv paper. For example, threads which discuss several related arXiv papers, or threads which discuss non-arXiv papers. Henry asked if there were any downsides to this more flexible organization scheme, and I didn’t notice any answers to his question.

     This (not restricting discussion topics) seems like a good idea to me. As Henry points out, it should be possible to keep track of which threads mention a given paper, so even if one’s only interest in the site is to accumulate commentary on specific papers, this proposal offers advantages.