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.
It’s very nice; check out the video demo; it’s short and excellent. There’s also a blog post.
If anyone would like to experiment with Scholastica, I just set up a journal called “Experiments in Mathematical Publishing”.
Feel free to submit a paper to it; if you do I’ll also assign you as a referee to another paper, so you can see how the interface works. I’d encourage a bunch of people to jump in — the Scholastica folks are actively developing this software, and I can attest that they respond to feedback and create new features incredibly quickly. There’s a feedback box on every page, and they’d love to hear all our comments.
If you like to be an “editor” of “Experiments in Mathematical Publishing”, let me know and I’ll add you.
(I will periodically delete anything that actually ends up “accepted” at the journal, and eventually the journal itself — this really is just a sandbox.)
Can we make this at least partially serious? How about if the referees do their best to produce something useful for the author - maybe the author can say whether they’d be interested in help polishing the article (as in Tim Gowers’ modest proposal) or a proper referee’s report as if the paper had actually been submitted?
Or is this stretching things too much right now?
I’ve submitted a paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2363 (which by the way is an old version of something since submitted to an existing journal, so this is as Scott say, just a test). I have one suggested referee and one referee to avoid (just used a close colleague’s name).
Unfortunately, Andrew, this version is an old one, and is far improved in the most up-to-date copy. What I think I’ll do is update the arXiv version to the submitted version, then see if I can update the version ’submitted’ to Exp. in Maths Pub. This will be useful to test, as it is something that people might want to do at some point.
Just tried to upload an old article (seminar notes) that was lying around on the arXiv, but I couldn’t figure out how to put in an old-style arXiv id. I left a comment, so hopefully they’ll respond - does anyone happen to know?
I’ve submitted a non-arxiv paper, just to see how that works. I gotta say, the interface for the scholastica site is pretty slick.
I was a bit surprised to find that when I clicked on the link in the email then I didn’t have to logon. That seems wrong. Also, has anyone managed to clear the “pending tasks” bit on the “home” icon?
Hi everyone! I think the scholastica guys will be reading this thread, so mostly bugs announced here will be directly dealt with. I can report on a few things, based on my contact with them:
@DavidRoberts (6), yes, the software announces the authors that referee reports have been filed, but won’t show them to you until an editor makes a decision. I agree this is a bit confusing to authors. @DavidRoberts (7), I think that’s my fault; I wrote the text of the email asking you to say how long you’d need, thinking that there was a response field a referee could fill it upon accepting, that would be forwarded to the author. At the moment, there isn’t any direct way to send a note to the editor at the same time as accepting the refereeing job, but I think there should be. @Francois, they say they fixed the bug with multiple links this morning, but haven’t cleaned up older submissions affected by this bug.
@8,9,10, 14, I’d explained the old arxiv identifiers problem to them earlier, but it’s actually a pretty gnarly issue. I’ve written programs to process arXiv identifiers before, and it’s hideous.
@DavidRoberts, double blind refereeing appears to me to be pretty unlikely to ever be relevant in mathematics. It’s pretty darn easy to guess the author of most papers…
Okay, the Scholastica guys just told me that they think they’ve fixed the problem with old arXiv identifiers. Let’s try to break it :-)
How does scholastica compare to Open Journal Systems? For one, I see that OJS is open source. I have seen OJS used successfully Journal of Logic and Analysis
I just successfully uploaded an old-style arXiv article so based solely on one data point, it works.
I’ve also just tried to submit and old style arXiv article. It looks like the arXiv url works, but the submission page gets stuck after I hit “Submit”, (it just says “Saving …”) and it seems the submission doesn’t go through.
Conventions over whether refereeing is double-blind or not, and whether you see the whole paper or just the abstract before agreeing to referee, vary from subject to subject. If Scholastica is intended for all subjects, or even just all science subjects, then surely there needs to be flexibility built in there. (Perhaps the creators of Scholastica have already built it in; I haven’t explored it much.)
Seconding David’s remarks on the reviewer email: I clicked “decline and suggest reviewers,” figuring it would bring me to a page where I could look over the relevant information before clicking the “officially decline” button. But after closing that window without either submitting names or clicking “I don’t have any names to suggest,” I found that the decline had been officially processed already – going back and clicking “accept” from the email just took me to a page explaining that I had already declined to review the paper.
Thirding David’s remarks. I’ve actually already asked the Scholastica folks for more scope for communication while accepting and declining.
@DavidRoberts #22 (re: front identifiers). Yes, the front’s alternative identifier scheme for old papers was just a bad idea, and I think at this point we should all pretend it never happened. :-)
Now that I’ve had a paper accepted in the prestigious new journal Experiments in Mathematical Publishing, when can I expect to see it online?
@DavidRoberts (lucky first author of EMP!), sadly, you can’t expect anything. The Scholastica folks are apparently working on providing a basic “publishing” module to the software, but it ain’t there yet. Perhaps we can also bug them about provide a programmatic API, so that others could easily write such modules, and retrieve accepted papers and publish them somewhere?
And, concerning said acceptance, the progress bar ends with ’Accepted’, but in the case that the decision is ’revise and resubmit’, then this is misleading. What happens in this case, when the second cycle of submission starts? In my capacity as a referee I just made such a recommendation, just to try it out.
@Scott - that would be best, because a journal would want to have its own visual style and perhaps interface - having the back end all the same (i.e. what we have now) is perfectly fine.
I find myself slightly uncomfortable with the points system on Scholastica, but I’m having a hard time putting my finger on why. It seems like mostly harmless fun on MO/MSE (though it gets disappointingly serious at times), but having numerically-based reputations permeate into the more professional aspects of, well, our profession, feels weird. For example, won’t there be an undesirably-visible correlation between the supposedly blind reviewers whose scores go up and the timing of an author’s receipt of his or her recently-reviewed article? Or perhaps more practically, if I’m a number-theorist with a high Scholastica reputation score, and there’s a unique number theory journal using Scholastica’s software, then I’m likely pegged as a frequent reviewer for that journal, reducing blindness.
(Or maybe I’ve misunderstood how the point system works, or how people get points?)
Thinking about it, I agree too. I can’t even think of an advantage in this case; it’s not like the positive feedback effects on MO apply to refereeing papers…
I agree with both, David. I wonder if we can persuade the Scholastica folks that many mathematicians are going to think this way. It might be hard to convince them to eradicate such features, but certainly it could easily be a “by journal” setting, controlled by the editors.
More generally, I think we’re going to have to hammer on this point: software for professional activities should think very very carefully about introducing “social networking” “features”. I’m afraid many developers won’t even consider the dangers of including too much of this sort of stuff, considering trends everywhere else on the internets.
Also agreed (the one comment I’ve filed via their on-page suggestion systems was to stop reminding me to add a picture), especially with the more global sentiment of keeping professional activities disjoint from social networking (excepting perhaps useful tool as per François’s suggestions).
1 to 40 of 40