Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

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

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to Math2.0
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2012
    • (edited Feb 11th 2012)

    Let me cut and paste my old discussion

    Zoran Skoda on February 19, 2009 4:28 PM wrote at nncafé here

    I do not understand all these strange efforts with fee based open access. I mean arXiv is massive and cheap to fund by the society, free for the end user. The author who is a creator, should not be feed for his good will to give away the work he spent life for!!!!!!

    And not every author has a grant agency.

    The only thing which one needs to add to the arXiv is the stamp for good refereed articles. Some of the articles could be stamped if they are submitted for stamp consideration and pass the selection.

    We referee for free. Why not moving editorials from commercial and quasiopen journals (like author-paid-fee criminal practice) to the overlay journals which will be cheap services on top of arXiv which will make refereeing process, including final “publication” polishing for those arXiv papers which authors decide to “submit” to the consideration of certain overlay journal ??

    I mean I, ZS, send a paper to the arXiv as version 0911.9999v1. After three months I post v2 as 0911.9999v2. Then I decide that v2 is good enough and submit it to editorial journal of arXoverlay-Category-Theory and to its editor Michael L. Groupoid.

    Prof. Grouopoid then sends a notice to two referees telling them that 0911.9999v2 is considered for publication and also notifies the arXiv that the paper is submitted and no other overlay journal can consider it before the decision has been made.

    After two months Prof. Groupoid sends me the notice back, Dear ZS, the referees so and so, like your paper, but they require that you amend proof of Theorem 2.7 which is incomplete before final publication.

    I work on that, submit 0911.9999v3 to the arXiv and send a notice to Prof. Groupoid that I am done with that. [Of course the journal correspondence and its arXiving could be automatized by some public service similar and independent of arXiv]

    Prof. Groupoid and the referees are now happy with 0911.9999v3 and they produce and send a proof version (maybe with style-file or other editorial final changes, like format of bibliography), by posting it to the arXiv as version 0911.9999voverlay4

    That version is not public yet, just v3 is. After reading the ‘proofs’ version in 3-4 days I confirm to the arXiv that 0911.9999voverlay4 may be published. The published version on the arXiv will have a stamp of journal authorized by Prof. Groupoid.

    Next day in postings 4-days old 0911.9999voverlay4 appears as now public 0911.9999v4 with a stamp, and with Journal ref. arXoverlay-Category-Theory v.2, art.6, 1-24 (2010) in the abstracts listings. The number art.6 could be assigned by arXiv which would keep track how many papers are published in each overlay, or instead after confirmation from the author, the editor could authorize the number and replace overlay version without generating new version number, with art number included.

    It is now free forever, it is refereed, and it was all cheap, because arXiv is far cheaper than say 6-billion dollar year revenue publishing system of commerical journals in science. And Prof. Groupoid can at his University of Santa Quategory may keep a separate web page of the journal with cheap html links

    to my art.6-verified at arXiv. His web server automatically or manually detects that art.6-proofs version has been authorized by me, and posts the link to the web page as pusblished.

    Of course, the arXiv would need to change in few things: allowing temporary proofs version (above overlayv4 submitted by the editorial staff), keeping track which articles are under consideration (no double submitions!), and giving 3 categories in daily listings: new, replacements and overlay-published.

    And we can have better overlay journals and those with a bit lower criteria. Hierarchy not worse than current. Or some journals can have the mainstream stamped papers and few of extra quality which would be stamped with stamp “featured article”.

    I wrote on this topic with slight variants and improvements elsewhere. If I find some of those more significant writings, I will archive here later.

    See also thread Gowers on publishing in nnForum here, where I argue about flaws of mere reputation system and Andrews article there with a proposal that journals would hand pick existing arXiv articles to examine and single for importance and this by multiple boards possibly including the same paper.

    What do you think ?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorYiftach Barnea
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2012
    Zoran, I like your suggestion. It has also the advantage that once the system is in place it will be very easy to start a new journal. Let me just emphasize your last point. It is very important to have a variety of overlay journals even in the same area and in the same level. If a paper is rejected from an overlay journal, it is important that the authors have other possibilities. I would like to see a system that reflects a wide variety of tastes with not too much power to one group of people.

    Another advantage of your system is that it is easy to transfer from one overlay journal to another. So if an editor thinks a paper should go to a better or a worst overlay journal. It is very easy to transfer it. Moreover, if an editor in the overlay journal: Best Overlay Journal of Mathematics (BOJM) spots a paper that already got approval from another overlay journal, say Not So Bad Overlay Journal of Mathematics (NSBOJM) and they really like it, then they can suggest to the authors to get an approval also from BOJM. There are no copyrights for journal. So an excellent paper that was missed can get recognition later on. Actually I can even see overlay journals that only consider papers that were already published a few years ago, so there is more perspective.
    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2012
    Incidentally, I tend to think there are some advantages to freezing the formal evaluation process at the time of publication. It has real disadvantages, for example that mistakes cannot be fixed (except by actually retracting papers). However, I worry that it could be even worse to create a system in which there might be career benefits (and therefore pressure) to spend time doing things like advocating for the latest fashionable review board to consider upgrading one's old papers.
    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorYiftach Barnea
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2012
    Henry, this can be avoided if such overlay journals will not accept submission of an approved paper but will only do so from their own initiative. In any case, they can make their own decision and we will judge their reputation. In some sense it will be like giving a prize to the best papers in the last 5 years without any money involved or maybe a very selective MathSciNet. Anyhow, the possibility is there what form exactly it will take might be too early to say.
    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorjejo
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2012
    I like the idea of overlay journals from a practical point of view, but I worry about consequences of creating journals whose sole purpose is explicitly stated as deciding which papers are correct and important. Before the arXiv, the direct purpose of journals among the five purposes discussed elsewhere on this site (dissemination, registration, validation, filtration, and designation) was dissemination. The other four, particularly validation and designation, were indirect purposes - Because the journals had limited space, they needed to make sure the papers they published were correct and important. But these two were means rather than ends. This legitimized the validation and designation processes because the journal was making a large (economic) investment founded on those two processes.

    Because an overlay journal would not have any economic stake in the validation and designation processes, their decisions might not end up carrying the same weight as a traditional journal would. In fact the easier it is to start an overlay journal, the harder it will be for anyone (particularly outside of mathematics) to take them seriously. Sure, an overlay journal would have its reputation at stake (plus today's electronic journals have a relatively small economic stake) but validation and designation only have value if they are perceived as legitimate. If an overlay journal becomes just a way for mathematicians to give each other awards whenever we want, then publication will become meaningless.
    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2012

    @jejo, it sounds like you are saying that journals only have validity because they have burnt money! Surely the “value” journals have arises instead solely from the consistency with which they provide validation and designation! But it may (very sadly) be that you’re on the right track, and burning money is actually a very effective way to establish credibility. It seems to work everywhere else in life…

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2012
    It's not just burning money, but getting someone to spend it. Operating a journal costs money, and assuming it's not being funded in some unorthodox way, that proves that some readers value the contents enough to pay for them. This is breaking down today, since anyone can put together a cheap web page and declare that it's an electronic journal, but it really used to mean something.

    It's the same with books, for example. Bookstores are full of a lot of junk, but it's nothing like the kind of junk you see from vanity presses, so the market pressures make a real difference.
    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorjejo
    • CommentTimeFeb 14th 2012
    Maybe I shouldn't have stressed the money aspect in that post. I meant to suggest it's about ends and means. For a traditional journal, the end is the dissemination of good mathematics, and validation and designation are means to that end. When validation and designation become explicit ends, there is a perceived risk of the motivations changing. This is why citation counting is often considered a good measure of quality - in theory, people don't cite a paper because of political motives but because the paper is important and because they believe it's correct. (The emphasis here is on "in theory".) But if you were to just list on your web page the papers you thought everyone should read, it would carry a lot less weight. In particular, people might suspect that you were mostly listing your friends papers or papers that cited your own work. For overlay journals to be legitimate, they would have to find a way to distinguish themselves from that list on your web page with all your friends' papers on it.
    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeFeb 14th 2012

    @jejo, okay, I agree with this description.

    At this point, we don’t actually see on anyone’s websites (am I wrong?) links to friends’ papers, or even more generally, links to papers the author thinks are “interesting”. I wonder why? I don’t think I’d be particularly suspicious about such a list; maybe more people should be trying this! It would be an extremely cheap experiment in journal alternatives. :-)

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorYemon Choi
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012

    Scott: something like this list? It’s more a list of things I thought were interesting, given that these days I haven’t found time to revise or update the list. Admittedly I don’t prominently link to this from my webpage, and it also doesn’t include some things that I have just downloaded or printed for frequent consultation.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012

    @Yemon,

    I guess you’re right, there are quite a few lists of this kind around (citeulike, papers, mendeley, delicious, ???). I probably have one somewhere too. We just need to work out how to make these lists useful. Also, to make it actually useful for you to revise or update the list.

    On that note, at various times I know mathematicians have invested effort into preparing subject area bibliographies. (e.g. I remember spending a fair amount of time as a grad student studying the bibliography on Vassiliev invariants.) These are a wonderful thing, and it would be great to think about how to provide the incentives, and minimize the burdens, so that more of these arose. In some sense, there needn’t be any sharp line between such a bibliography and a “journal”, and it might be very effective to work up from the bottom.

  1. @Scott #09 Most math bloggers write about papers regularly. If you enter “in this paper” into the search at mathblogging.org, you’ll find many blog posts discussing results (after the first few results which are, ironically, from sciencedirect).

    I always find Igor Carron’s work most impressive, keeping up with essentially everything that happens in compressive sensing; pre/post publication peer review, conferences, lectures etc.

    @Scott #11 Have you heard of the term ’altmetrics’? PLoS One just closed submissions for a volume on altmetrics.

    Two examples from the altmetrics site:

    Sciencecard focuses on authors (mixing citeulike, mendeley etc with google scholar etc)

    Total Impact focuses on individual works.

    It’s really impressive, what they’ve already accomplished over the last two years.

    •  
    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthoradsmith
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012
    These already exist, and require no retrofitting of the arxiv.
    See the journal "SIGMA"
    http://www.emis.de/journals/SIGMA/
    http://www.emis.de/journals/SIGMA/about.html#overlay
    And to search for all sigma articles, go here:
    http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/search/jr:sigma
    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorYemon Choi
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012

    Peter, it is not so clear to me that all that “math blogging” is discussing papers or books on mathematics. I am getting more scidirect results and stuff from eg RetractionWatch than you seemed to when searching for that string.

    But then, I speak as someone who I think crops up on your list, and rarely blogs about papers.

    Almost nothing like this can be found in functional analysis/operator theory, to my knowledge.

    Finally, metrics that work well for the applied or life sciences may not work well for maths. They might, but I will be more impressed if there are similar studies/results focusing on mathematics.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorPeter Krautzberger
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012
    • (edited Feb 16th 2012)

    @Yemon’s #14

    Yes, the google results through mathblogging.org are not very useful – sciencedirect has a much higher page rank than the Secret Blogging Seminar. I was merely trying to point out that if we look in the wrong places (academic homepages), then it’s not surprising that we won’t find people mentioning papers.

    Yes, also, to the fact that not enough people are writing about papers. But isn’t this what we are trying to change with ideas like open reviewing platforms?

    Your last paragraph leaves me somewhat dumbfounded. Of course, these tools aren’t working for mathematics right now – because nobody writes about papers in any way. We will never ever see a study if we don’t start doing something.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorYemon Choi
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012

    Peter: Your last paragraph is a good point, and you are right to point out that what I said illustrates the very fact you were trying to make.

    Your penultimate paragraph leaves me dumbfounded - as I said on another thread, “what do you mean ’we’, Paleface?” Open reviewing is not the grail I am seeking. Better reviewing, or rather a better publishing model, is.

    FWIW, I spend a lot of time thinking about papers, but I don’t write about them, mainly because I don’t like writing at length when I don’t know what I am talking about, and prefer signal to noise. Now if you will excuse me for a moment, I have to go and do my job while trying to find time to get a paper written up ;)

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorPeter Krautzberger
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012
    • (edited Feb 16th 2012)

    Yemon. Great! At least we’re on the same level of confusion now :D Yes, I was squirming myself when I wrote “we” – I apologize.

    As you may have guessed, I’m on the opposite side of things. I don’t think the problem lies with publishing or can be fixed by finding a better model for publishing. But this is a different discussion in a different forum. In any case, I support anything that makes the “scientific community” more of a real community, connecting through the net.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorjhjensen
    • CommentTimeMar 14th 2012
    I have created a chemistry overlay journal using Blogger.com: http://compchemhighlights.org. The main point I want to make here is that anyone can set up such a site in a few hours. The real challenges are "social"; building prestige and recognition associated with the journal and recruiting editors. It is not clear how best to do this, but I think the best approach is to create many such journals and see what works and what doesn't. I should note that CCH is not limited to arXiv preprints, but also considers already published works.

    (I will cross-post over at the review board site).
  2. @jhjensen: I do not believe it is wise to try a lot journal and watch them succeed or die. Very quickly, authors will be very reluctant to submit in any of these “new wave’” journals because they might disappear a few months later, and no one likes to see its article buried in a dead venue. Due to this, and to the amount of effort needed to try anyone new journal, each attempt should be carefully planed and prepared. Maybe some will fail nonetheless, but in my opinion the perceived risk and the loss of time should be minimized.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeMar 14th 2012
    I agree with Benoit. Another issue is that it's important that a journal should be very clearly distinguished from a blog. Not for any fundamental scholarly reason, but in order to address the career benefits for authors. (You don't want people to dismiss the journal as meaningless, saying "Oh, that's not a real journal, just a blog that highlights papers the bloggers like, and they call themselves an editorial board rather than a group of bloggers." This might be a totally unfair criticism, and people may change their minds after seeing how it works over time, but the journal's beginnings will be much easier if you can avoid these issues.)
    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorjhjensen
    • CommentTimeMar 14th 2012
    Thanks very much for your comments. I agree that at this early stage authors run a risk by solely submitting their manuscripts to CCH. However, CCH develops prestige (brand, usage, whatever you want to call it) by identifying the most important *published* papers in a particular field. As the prestige and continuity is established authors run an increasingly smaller risk by submitting their abstracts solely to CCH. Furthermore, since CCH (and other similar review boards/overlay journals) review/highlight papers on a non-exclusive basis, authors run less of a risk, the more there are.
    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeMar 14th 2012
    I'm skeptical that overlays like this will supplant journals in the foreseeable future, but they sound like a good idea in their own right. I hope CCH goes well.
    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeMar 15th 2012

    This is actually quite close to what I would like to see in Maths. What I think it would need (and I admit I only took a brief glance at the link) is:

    1. A respected editorial board. What I want is for this to be clearly different to “some stuff I, or Joe Blogs, quite like the look of”. Anything new is going to need some weight behind it.
    2. Definite criteria for posting. Ditto, really. As a “consumer”, I want to know that if I want to find the most recent papers in, say, techniques of x-ray crystallography (pardon my ignorance of your field!) then I know to go to a particular “overlay”. I want to know that all the important papers will be there, regardless of whether or not they are published elsewhere, and I want to know that that is where I should go.

    To Henry: what does this miss out on that journals provide? Why would you prefer a “traditional journal” to a system like this?

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorjhjensen
    • CommentTimeMar 15th 2012
    @Henry: thanks!

    @Andrew:
    1. I find that gathering a respected editorial board is by far the biggest challenge. Currently about 66% say no or answer with a "polite silence". However, I do think relatively unknown people can make an impact if they consistently pick interesting papers and write insightful reviews, and this impact is quantified via page views. Anyway, I am very happy with the people who have signed up so far.

    2. I agree that would be ideal, but a tall order for a topic as general as computational chemistry. However, more specialized overlay journals could conceivably do that. But this would require the participation of many of the people in that particular field, and that's unlikely at this stage.

    One could hope that in the not too distant futures contributing to overlay journals will be seen as "part of the job", much like reviewing is now. Or, put another way, that much of the reviewing will take place in overlay journals.
    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeMar 15th 2012
    @Andrew: This would have a lot of overlap with the journal system and give many of the benefits, but it doesn't deal with the long-term archiving issue: some of the meta-content may never be archived, and even the arXiv itself is not actually a satisfactory solution for archiving. This is a solvable problem, but one that's easy to neglect until later, at which point it will be much more painful to try to clean up the mess. (And, if an overlay doesn't become popular in the long run, there will likely never be any archiving.)

    I also think there's real benefit to the other services well-run journals provide (such as copy editing and typesetting). My model is Geometry & Topology: papers there are just nicer than the vast majority of arXiv papers. Maybe we'll have to give this up someday, but I hope not, and I'm not eager to give it up on purpose. This is just a psychological effect, and not a major scientific issue, but I think aiming for beauty and high standards of presentation is important.

    One small advantage over journals is that overlays can easily accommodate papers published elsewere, but I'm not convinced this is a big deal. There may be other minor disadvantages; for example, I think there's some benefit to freezing a paper for later reference, and even halting the process of formal evaluation of the importance of the paper, so we can move on. Maybe I would just need to get used to another system, and then I'd be even happier with it. However, I'd be irritated if we ended up with a system in which there are career benefits to periodically bringing your favorite papers to the attention of this year's most fashionable overlay.

    I'm much more excited about using the internet for different kinds of commentary and discussion, that don't fit in the traditional publication model at all, rather than for replacing journals with a modified version. For example, John Baez's This Week's Finds is one of the best and most inspirational things on the internet for mathematicians. I'd love ideas for how to create incentives for more work of this kind. (But that's going off on a different topic from overlays.)
    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeMar 15th 2012

    but it doesn’t deal with the long-term archiving issue

    Neither do journals. I completely agree that this needs to be solved. I’d rather divorce it from journals since they only do it by chance. Similarly, I agree that a paper published by G&T is generally easier to read than a random one pulled off the arXiv, but again I’m not convinced that journals are the best way to get articles polished like that. Not all journals enforce the same high standard and I prefer to make this more democratic than a privilege for the elite who manage to get their articles into G&T. So, again, I agree completely but don’t see that journals are a very good way of achieving this end.

    I also agree that there is a benefit in “freezing” a version of a paper. But why can’t an overlay do that? Papers on the arXiv (let’s assume that the overlay only picks them from the arXiv for simplicity) have a version number so the overlay can say “We wish to bring paper X to everyone’s attention. The version we looked at was 2.”

    I think that the only bit where I have any real dissent from your post is the last paragraph. I’m generally in favour of using the internet to discuss mathematics (I’m less in favour of it being by the article, but that’s minor) but I think that that happens pretty well by itself and any attempt to organise it more stringently will not succeed. There are probably ways to make it easier, and link things a bit better, but things like that are what the internet is good at and it will carry on doing that. Replacing journals (or even just fixing them so that they actually work for us instead of against us) is harder, and that’s what I’m keen to get going.

    Incidentally, the biggest advantage of overlays (I prefer the term “review board”, by the way) is that the are not exclusive. One of these can be devoted to geometry and topology, and highlight all the work going on in geometry and topology. Another can focus particularly on generalised cohomology theories. Clearly, there’s a big overlap. But that’s not a problem: papers can appear in both.

    I just keep coming back to the thought that in my day-to-day work life, journals feature not one bit. If you asked me about the most recent papers that I’d read, I’d have to go back and look up which journals they actually appeared in. It’s not even that I don’t remember, I didn’t even look! If I have access to an article, MathSciNet helpfully gives me a link straight to it. I never have to know what journal it was in.

    So journals - as far as I’m concerned - are at best irrelevant and at worst a down-right hindrance because when I do notice them then it’s always because of something bad happening: usually not having access. So if all the things that journals claim to do (and I dispute that they do them well) could be farmed out to other systems, I’d be extremely happy. Not only would we have a better system for doing each of those things (because it had been designed as such) but also journals would stop getting in the way of my daily work.

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeMar 15th 2012

    Neither do journals. I completely agree that this needs to be solved. I’d rather divorce it from journals since they only do it by chance.

    Actually, I think responsible journals solve the archiving problem about as well as we know how to do (for example, by generating standards-compliant archival files and ensuring that some organization like Portico is taking care of them). Not all publishers are responsible enough, but learned societies, university presses, and even large commercial publishers generally are. The few that aren’t are doing the field a disservice.

    I also agree that there is a benefit in “freezing” a version of a paper. But why can’t an overlay do that?

    An individual overlay can, although it will have less ability to single out an “official” version of the paper than journals do. However, I think freezing the formal evaluation process is also valuable.

    What I’m imagining is that review boards will be much more fluid and time-limited than journals. With journals, there’s an expectation that unless something goes wrong, your journal will still be around in a hundred years or more. With review boards, because there is no exclusivity in which boards can evaluate or include a paper, I’d bet they will come and go, depending on who has time on their hands or what seems fashionable. We could end up in a situation where the prestigious review board that rated your paper five years ago is now defunct, and its name recognition is gradually decreasing, while administrators now care primarily about whether a hot new board likes the paper. I don’t want to get caught in an endless cycle of seeking new forms of review or approval for older papers. This could have its advantages, since sometimes the true importance of a paper becomes clear only over time, but dramatic changes are rare and I think repeated review is usually pretty inefficient.

    I just keep coming back to the thought that in my day-to-day work life, journals feature not one bit.

    Interesting, that makes this much clearer. I find that journals play more of a role in my day-to-day work life. Partly just since I pay attention to them, but also because I find value in things like skimming through tables of contents.

    Now I’m really curious about how much variation there is in the working styles of different mathematicians. I wonder whether anyone has ever done an ethnographic study of mathematicians (maybe like Traweek’s book Lifetimes and Beamtimes, which deals with particle physicists). I tried some searches to find out, and while I didn’t immediately find what I was looking for, I did find some “mathematical ethnography” videos here: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/research/videos/. They are totally tangential to this discussion, but seem like a great project.

    • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorKevin Walker
    • CommentTimeMar 15th 2012

    I’ll add another data point regarding journals in day-to-day work life. I’m much closer to Andrew than to Henry. If journals were to suddenly cease to exist, and we were left with only the arXiv and googleable preprints posted on individual mathematicians’ web sites, it would take me several months to notice that anything had happened.

    (I’m not arguing that we don’t need journals – I agree that they perform many important functions, as discussed in many of the threads in this forum. I’m just describing how I (rarely) interact with them while doing research.)

    Even in the pre-arXiv, pre-internet 1980’s, when I was a grad student, I thought that preprints were far more important than published versions of articles. This is partly because of people like Casson and Thurston, who tended to produce Very Important preprints and not always bother to submit them to journals. It also had to do with the lag in publishing time; by the time a preprint became a published journal article, it was already old news. Even for articles which had already been published, I tended to read the preprint versions, because it was much easier to walk into Rob Kirby’s office and consult his vast collection of preprints than it was to go to the library and photocopy an article. Now that Rob’s file cabinet has been replaced by the arXiv, the above reasons hold even more strongly.

    • CommentRowNumber29.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2012

    Incidentally, here are some issues overlays or review boards will have to deal with, if the same paper can be considered by multiple boards and if there’s any intention of supplanting journals. I’m by no means saying these issues will be unsolvable problems, but they are things that should be thought through carefully.

    (1) How will they get reviews of papers? The current system of anonymous refereeing has some obvious limitations, but when it works well it ensures that the paper is evaluated by someone who has read it carefully and is in a position to speak honestly. I don’t think review boards will carry much weight if they seem to be based primarily on the editors’ taste, the reputation of the papers, whether the subject matter seems interesting, etc. These are perfectly good reasons to highlight interesting papers, and a review board that does just this could be useful, but these boards can’t take over the role of academic evaluation without a more principled and careful review process. If multiple boards consider papers, I think it will be very difficult to get journal-style referee reports, since referees are busy and don’t want to waste time seriously re-evaluating papers that have already been evaluated. This means the boards will either have to be very persuasive or come up with a different system.

    (2) What’s the incentive to serve on a review board? For journals, there’s artificial scarcity because of the exclusive publication rights for papers. Since each paper is published by only one journal, and each editor handles many papers, there can’t be that many editors, so being an editor of a journal is generally more prestigious than just publishing there. I wonder how much of a role this plays in motivating editors. In my case, choosing referees is generally fun, and trying to arrive at fair and reasonable decisions based on the reports is sometimes fun and always interesting; however, actually getting the reports is not fun at all. I’d still do it if there were no career benefits, but probably less enthusiastically and perhaps less often.

    If there are far more review boards than journals, then it will give opportunities to more mathematicians, but these opportunities may be less attractive. Some people will really enjoy this kind of activity, regardless of the prestige, and others will be eager for any visibility they can get in the community, but a robust system needs to attract a broad group of participants, or it may become marginalized as a niche interest. This wouldn’t make the system intrinsically less useful, but it could be an obstacle to replacing journals.

    (3) What constitutes a successful or prestigious review board (in terms of the weight its approval carries)? For journals, exclusivity means you can judge a journal by the papers it attracts: some journals have slightly differing standards in different areas, but as a general rule people won’t submit really good papers to a journal they think has low standards in any area, so journals get sorted roughly by quality. You can debate whether this self-referential process actually converges to a meaningful fixed point, but it certainly carries some information.

    I’d guess that few people would deny a review board permission to consider their paper. (I’d feel very awkward telling someone “No, please don’t list my paper on your site, since your approval would be worse than not being mentioned at all.”) If many people feel this way, then it would be easy for a review board to get lots of good papers. When judging a review board, you couldn’t use the short-cut of asking whether you know they include a lot of good papers; instead, you’d have to investigate whether any less good papers were hiding among the good ones.

    And I’d bet that would happen pretty frequently. One common reason to found a review board would be “gee, wouldn’t it be great if there were a board on topic X with standards like Y, but giving more attention to issue Z than Y does?” So the world could end up full of review boards trying to correct for perceived biases or under/overrepresentation. This could be very useful in providing a broader spectrum of opinion than journals do. However, judging how meaningful a review board’s approval is could become more of a political issue of whether you agree with their goals. (By contrast, competition for a limited number of papers puts some pressure on journals to adopt a consensus approach. Occasionally you get one like Experimental Mathematics, but that’s pretty unusual.)

    • CommentRowNumber30.
    • CommentAuthorjhjensen
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2012
    @Andrew and @Kevin: Math is clearly years ahead of chemistry in terms of using arxiv. These are very interesting observations to a chemist.

    @Henry:
    (1) The model I choose for CCH is that an editor reviews an individual paper. That's why I'd like to recruit at least 50 editors. I can tell you that my highlights stem from a review of the paper that is just as thorough as my anonymous reviews for journals. This is because put my name to it in a very public way, and because I often email the authors with questions before I post. Why not? They'll see it anyway.

    (2) There are several answers to this:
    (A) for the same reasons people review papers now,
    (B) there is still prestige attached. As the number of review boards increases, wouldn't the question be "why is this person not on a single review board?"
    (C) some review boards will be more prestigious than others, as you pointed out. I would argue that the best way to get on one of these is to shine in less prestigious review boards (see D). This is already happening in blogging.
    (D) the impact and, I would argue, prestige of review boards is quantifiable by page views. More importantly, the same is true for individual contributors.

    (3) the impact and, I would argue, prestige of review boards is quantifiable by page views. This is clearly the case for blogs now.
    Furthermore, I don't understand the "permission to consider a paper". If it's publicly available on arxiv, what law prevents someone for posting a review with a link to the document?
    • CommentRowNumber31.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2012

    In this model, a review board is basically a group blog in which the blog posts are all reviews of papers. (I was envisioning a different sort of overlay, which takes submissions and does anonymous refereeing but doesn’t actually host papers. The “permission to consider a paper” was imagining that the editors were soliciting a submission to their review board.) This seems like a worthwhile thing to do, but the question is whether the research community will end up treating it more like a blog or a journal.

    For comparison, if someone famous (say, Terry Tao) praises a paper in a blog post, it will impress people and get the paper more attention, but it won’t be something the author can list in their CV or treat on an equal footing with a journal acceptance. If Terry rebranded his blog as a review board, I’m honestly unsure how people would interpret it.

    My guess is that review boards will end up much like blogs: there’s a thriving blog community, which is very beneficial for the people involved in it, but it involves only a fraction of all mathematicians and is not greatly valued by academia as a whole. I could be wrong about this, and even if I’m right it will still be worth doing for its own sake. But if it matters to you that review boards should be viewed very differently from blogs, then it’s worth trying to maintain as clear a distinction as possible.

    • CommentRowNumber32.
    • CommentAuthorjhjensen
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2012
    I would argue that the distinction between journals and blogs is disappearing. Some journals are adding comments sections and displaying page views and mentions on social networks.
    • CommentRowNumber33.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2012

    I agree that the technological distinction between them is disappearing rapidly: blogs and electronic journals are closely related forms of serial publication. Aside from a few technical issues like archiving, the only fundamental difference between them is procedural. On the other hand, I don’t see much decrease yet in the the social distinction between them, in how academia treats them. I think part of this social distinction is unjustified conservatism, and part of it is because the journal approach of anonymous peer review and rough sorting of papers by quality has worked productively for many years.

    It’s definitely possible that over the years, blogs themselves will become much more valued parts of academia, but social change can be slow. So I see three possibilities for promoting blog-like overlays:

    1. Hoping this change happens by itself in a reasonable time frame.

    2. Pushing to increase the academic status of all blogs more rapidly.

    3. Laying out a clear case for why review boards should be treated very differently from other blogs.

    My personal feeling is that these sorts of overlays will be a valuable addition to the journal system but won’t substitute for journals in the foreseeable future (public review of selected papers by editors serves a very different need from anonymous peer review of submissions).

    • CommentRowNumber34.
    • CommentAuthorAndy Putman
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2012
    @jhjensen : Do we live on different planets? I see no evidence of this happening (and at least in math, I cannot think of any mainstream journals that have comments sections or display pageviews/trackbacks).

    I've seen a lot of people here really overstate the impact of social networking on mathematics. In my department, I think I'm the only faculty member one who contributes to mathoverflow or comments on blogs (and no-one has a blog). I don't think this is an unusually low percentage.
    • CommentRowNumber35.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2012

    For comparison, there are 5,857 users with reputation at least 11 on mathoverflow (i.e., at least one net upvote), and 645 with reputation at least 1000 (i.e., pretty involved users). I don’t know what fraction of these users are mathematicians - probably a sizeable fraction of the active users but nowhere near 100%, and a much lower fraction of the total. I don’t know statistics for the number of mathematicians who have posted or commented on research blogs, but I’m confident it is lower than these numbers.

    As a crude estimate, there may be 100,000 professional mathematicians out there, of whom perhaps 10,000 are active researchers, so even though mathoverflow is very successful, it has not reached much of the community. I don’t have estimates for how many mathematicians read blogs or mathoverflow without contributing directly, and I’m not even sure where reliable numbers could come from (since page views won’t distinguish between mathematicians and other visitors), but anecdotal evidence suggests the numbers aren’t super high.

    I’m a big fan of the online mathematics community, and I think it’s contributing great things to the profession, but Andy’s right that the total impact so far is small compared with the absolute number of mathematicians.

    • CommentRowNumber36.
    • CommentAuthorAlexander Woo
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2012
    @jhjensen: This might be another difference between math and chemistry.

    Probably around half of published mathematics papers are read by no one other than the authors and the referee. If by 'read', you mean 'read every word carefully', then almost all published mathematics papers are read by no one other than the authors and the referee.

    Nevertheless, there is a good deal of distinction among all these never read papers. Some are considered good enough to appear in mid-tier journals, some are considered only good for lower-tier journals, and some are not considered worth publishing (but may appear in journals that accept everything). Moreover, I think you would find a good deal of agreement among experts in a particular subfield about which papers belong in which category. While not everyone will agree precisely on the reputation of journals, there is again a rough expert consensus.

    It's hard to imagine that counting page views will reliably distinguish between mid-tier, lower-tier, and junk journals. Also, as you can see from Andrew and Kevin's comments, many mathematicians basically ignore journals in their professional lives (except, perhaps and very ironically, when evaluating candidates in subfields far from their own for positions in their department), so it's not clear that page views say so much even for the journals full of papers that people actually do read.

    Since mathematics subfields are small communities, generally journals do not play much of a dissemination role. If you first learn about a new result by reading it in a journal, you clearly haven't been keeping up with your field well enough! Honestly, if you want to get a good idea of what is going on in my area of mathematics, you would do much better browsing the seminar listings for the most prominent departments in my area than you would by browsing the tables of contents for the journals in my area.
    • CommentRowNumber37.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2012

    My original post on review boards was this one: /discussion/4/review-boards

    I agree that the distinction between a review board and a blog might be small, but in my conception of a review board then there is a significant difference. That is that a review board should be viewed as something professional, much as journals are now. I don’t know fully how to achieve this, but part of it would be that a review board should have definite public criteria for what it included. Moreover, a review board should be more than its editorial board in that it shouldn’t matter who is on the board.

    Geometry and Topology is often held up as a model journal. I’d like to highlight something it does that I don’t know of any other journal that does (which is probably just my ignorance). Every time a new issue is produced, I get an email with a list of the titles and abstracts. Now, in practice this is fairly pointless. As others have pointed out, by the time an article is in print then if I’m interested in it I should have already seen it. Moreover, it’s only the papers that G&T (and AG&T) have published, not a list of all geometrical and topological papers recently published. So it’s too little, too late. But at least it is something. That’s the sort of thing (but better) that review boards can start off doing. This wouldn’t involve much effort in the early days. It could piggy-back on journals - they do the refereeing, the review boards do the publicising. Then as the movement grew (if it did) it could slowly take on a life of its own, organising refereeing itself.

    At the start then no, there probably wouldn’t be a lot of difference between a review board and a blog. But I would hope that the review boards would grow in stature - much as a new journal has to - until it was seen as a part of the establishment. Moreover, right from the start a successful review board would be providing a valuable service to the community and as such, would be making a positive contribution (unlike journals).

    • CommentRowNumber38.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2012

    Regarding publicizing papers, this is something that happens in various ways here and there, but should be done much more often. For example, the SIAM activity group on orthogonal polynomials and special functions highlights recent arXiv preprints in their newsletter, and I’ve found this quite interesting (it’s easy to overlook them in the daily arXiv feeds).

    I’m skeptical about the idea of eventually taking over refereeing and replacing journals, but I’d be very happy to see additional ways of organizing and publicizing papers, and this is something that’s not so hard to do.

    • CommentRowNumber39.
    • CommentAuthorjhjensen
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2012
    @andrew: This is essentially my vision for CCH: http://proteinsandwavefunctions.blogspot.com/2012/02/computational-chemistry-highlights-new.html
    Some early data from this experiment: about 1/3 of the people I write to accept the invitation to be on the editorial board, although most of them have yet to contribute. I am writing to 1-4 people every week, rather than a mass mailing. The hope is that the acceptance rate will go up as the editorial board grows.

    I announced the February issue on a popular CC mailing list and got >1000 page views over two days. More data here: http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s16jhjensen&r=0. I plan to post the TOC of monthly issues on the mailing list, to see if the trend continues.

    @Henry: many chemistry journals now mail a list of most accessed papers out periodically. A mention on such a list often appears on CVs and web pages. But chemistry is quite different from math here: arxiv deposition is virtually unknown, submission to web publication lasts about 2-6 months, and unpublished results are only occationally discussed in seminars and conferences.
    • CommentRowNumber40.
    • CommentAuthorMark C. Wilson
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2013

    Tim Gowers’ post http://gowers.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/why-ive-also-joined-the-good-guys/ has brought this issue back. ArXiv overlays are now to be called epijournals, it seems. The intention seems to be a traditionally peer-reviewed journal, but with papers hosted on arXiv. This would give an incentive for authros to keep their arxiv versions up to date. I am sure I am not the only one who still treats it as a preprint server, and doesn’t update with the final published version (or as close as I can without running into legal issues). The post-publication review board idea doesn’t seem to be envisaged, as I understand it.

    • CommentRowNumber41.
    • CommentAuthorBenoit Kloeckner
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2013
    • (edited Jan 22nd 2013)

    The official presentation of the episcience project: http://blog.ccsd.cnrs.fr/2013/01/episciences-de-quoi-sagit-il/ and at episciences.org .

    Let me stress that the epijournal will be able to get submissions from several open archives, at least arXiv and HaL (a french multidisciplinary open archive) at first. Since the project aims at covering all domains of research in the long run, arXiv cannot be the unique archive to be used.

    Do not hesitate to ask if you have any question; many points are not settled yet, but many other can be clarified.

    • CommentRowNumber42.
    • CommentAuthordarij grinberg
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2013

    Before anyone asks, it’s http://episciences.org/ , not http://episcience.org/

    Needless to say, I’m glad that this idea seems to finally get implemented.

  3. @darij grinberg: many thanks for the comment, I corrected the address in my post.