Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
publishing.mathforge.org
discussion forum. The forum is no longer active but much discussion took place on these pages so an archive has been preserved.I for one would like something to substitute for the Journal of Functional Analysis. (My own feeling, but I could very well be mistaken, is that GAFA has both a slightly different focus and a higher median “quality” these days.) There is also, lower down the ladder as regards algebraic functional analysis, the Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications.
A couple of newer free journals in analysis have been set up in the last couple of years, but I don’t think they have reached the status where those of us needing to play these silly publication games can gladly submit there. Perhaps if more senior people submit to them then their stock will rise.
Disclosure: I have a paper in JFA and a paper in JMAA, and done a fair amount of refereeing for the latter.
I guess I can plug Analysis & PDE, an MSP journal where I am an editor, which is basically the analysis version of Geometry & Topology, and has respectable citation indices (for those people who have to care about such things). Thus far it hasn’t had many submissions from the functional side of analysis, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t be able to take such submissions.
Thanks, TT - I must sheepishly admit that I hadn’t heard of Analysis & PDE before. Well, the calibre of the authors to date seems a bit daunting, but certainly this will now go on my list of journals to consider if I ever strike gold. (In all honesty, I think only one of my papers to date would have been a realistic candidate for submission there.)
I second 8 that there is a need for a math-society driven top level journal in algebra in general (that is: not too focused on better covered group/representation theory or number theory, which had several of their own journals). Communications in algebra has large volume, so while the price per page is not that much a problem it is overall a sizeable subscription pricewise and most of the institutions I had relation to in past had no subscription for it; besides it is not as good as Journal of algebra. If we look at the list of journals issued or distributed by American Mathematical Society and Soc. Math. de France which is at this alpha journals list we see that most of the journals are of general nature and besides we have there listed specialized journals for algebraic geometry, number theory, representation theory, operator theory, computation, applied mathematics, dynamics, probability, history of mathematics. London Math. Society controls new Journal of topology and there is a related control over new Journal of K-theory whose board went to better deal than before with Kluwer. Thus the most obvious big gap in big-society driven publication is algebra without quite well represented group/representation theory and number theory.
I also feel a difficult fragmentation in mathematical physics. For much of that area the things are OK. String theory gets easily published almost anywhere. Old fashioned mathematical physics (like analysis of Schroedinger operators) has its own favorite journals, even among the general ones (even Annals get biased toward those often). With the rest it is a problem. Letters in Math. Physics (Springer) and Communications in mathematical physics (Springer) are excellent but not enough for such a big area of science; besides they are bpth in Springer and not handled by a mathematical society, and Communications in particular, is not affordable for many libraries. Most of other journals in mathematical physics are published by more physics oriented boards (e.g. Journal of Math. Physics, Journal of Physics A) and like to reject papers which did not get enough close to a concrete physical application. This makes many of my colleague and even some collaborators resorting to a not so honest style with a long introduction talking about general motivation, metioning so many references and talking Planck scale physics and all kinds of bullshit which is not even touched in the calculations in the paper. If you do not do that you get rejected, while if you do that, you obscured the text and cheated the reader. It is becoming an accepted, received and normalized behaviour in number of areas like in the study of noncommutative space-times and so on, where I happened to write few articles. It is always a frustration when you risk a quick rejection of the paper just because you reject the impulse to write a nonsense introduction mentioning quantum gravity and alike without true excuse for that. I am talking about average level publications in journals of the level of Journal of physics A. The fate of their publishing depends less on their results and more on their packacking and presentation. I know authors who publish by steady pace very non-original work but have established patterns how to package and do not mind getting through 2-3 journals per paper per publication until acceptance. On the other hand, I feel if one has a paper rejected one should rethink through the whole issue, redo the part of the research and so on, and not just go to the second journal and do the job by persistence.
1 to 11 of 11