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.
    • CommentAuthorMark C. Wilson
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2014

    I am surprised at the low speed of change in mathematical publishing since early 2012. The Episciences project is now advertised as starting in 2014, but I recall it being April 2013 originally. No explanation is given for the delay. Forum of Mathematics seems to have a few papers now, at least. SCOAP3 seems to moving at a glacial pace.

    Researchers in experimental fields have reasons to be concerned about changing peer review, but surely arXiv is good enough for most mathematicians. Yet it is very far from being universally used. Gowers’ latest idea (implemented by Scott Morrison) of cataloguing free versions of papers in “important” math journals on a wiki seems useful, and initial results do seem to show that some kind of arXiv overlay would suffice for most needs.

    Staying in the traditional paradigm, in 2013 I helped completely revamp an existing electronic journal (analytic-combinatorics.org) and it is now in pretty good shape. We could certainly scale up in number of submissions by a factor of 10 (not sure about 100) without any extra resources. I have had a few emails from Elsevier editors explaining how they get resources to help them do their job. I still remain completely unconvinced that free tools like OJS can’t duplicate this easily. Why is it so hard to get traction with editors, and get them to bargain hard with the “owners”?

  1. Just about Épisciences: it is true that the project has been delayed and that the communication about this has been scarce, to say the least. The reason for the delay has been the time needed to develop the software, which includes some unconventional feature (notably importation from arXiv and HaL of pdf and more importantly metadata). The development has really started later than expected and we chose not to rush into opening the project, in order to get a solid software. Things have really progressed now, even if it is not perceptible from the outside. The support of partners is strong, and I am confident the project will open this year, probably closer to now than December.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorspitters
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2014

    You might enjoy our experiment with publishing a CC-BY-SA book: http://homotopytypetheory.org/book/

    About the collaborative process using git(hub) version control: http://math.andrej.com/2013/06/20/the-hott-book/ http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/06/cades-witty-headline-here/

    800 hard copies have been sold so far, thousands of downloads. This is a best-seller in our circles (logic, category theory, …) We are really benefiting from the license, people send as patches for typos, improvements. Many people do this, but each person finds only a few issues, which suggests that the book has been carefully proof read (it has!)

    Planetmath turned it into a wiki book without telling us in advance, but with proper attribution. That’s great! http://planetmath.org/node/87534