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.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeFeb 14th 2012

    It’s very nice; check out the video demo; it’s short and excellent. There’s also a blog post.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeFeb 14th 2012

    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.)

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeFeb 14th 2012
    • (edited Feb 14th 2012)

    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?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012
    • (edited Feb 15th 2012)

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorjejo
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012
    I submitted one, too. It's a very nice, straightforward interface, and this was certainly the easiest submission process I've done.

    The problem with making this serious is that it would require convincing people to submit papers to EMP instead of a journal that already has a reputation and is guaranteed to be around for a while. Assuming the technical aspects of this experiment are successful, making a serious journal along these lines would require the involvement and dedication of mathematicians with connections and clout (perhaps a Fields Medalist or two - that wouldn't hurt).
    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012
    • (edited Feb 15th 2012)
    OK, I have received an email that referee reports have been received, and I get given a link, but I can't (as yet) see the reports. There is only one step to go (acceptance for publication), so I'm not sure when I'll see them...

    Also, I got an email saying I submitted the manuscript again, for some reason, and there are two copies of the manuscript sitting there.

    (apologies for the nitty gritty, but I want to see if anyone else gets what I get)
    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012
    Now I have a second manuscript to review, and the email asks me "If you accept, please let me know how long you will need to complete your review.", but on the site there doesn't appear to be a way to do this, I think I'd need to email the editor (I suppose) directly. I clicked accept, but perhaps I should have declined, so that the functionality of that step can be tested.
    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012

    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?

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012
    hmm, it does seem to be an issue. And the old identifiers, stripped of their 'math/' or 'hep-th/' or whatever are not unique, so that will cause problems too.
    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorCharles Rezk
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorFrançois G. Dorais
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012
    • (edited Feb 15th 2012)
    I just signed up to review a paper. The process was very nice and easy: just two clicks and I could start reading the paper. It took me a second to realize that I didn't have to go through the journal page to access the reviewer page again. It shows up in your 'important action items', which makes a lot of sense.

    The only bug is a very minor one: there are two links to the same paper on the reviewer page.

    I almost forgot to mention that I was a bit surprised that I was only able to see the paper abstract before making a decision to review. It would be much better to have the title (and author, unless double-blind) and a link to the full paper.
    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012

    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?

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012
    Yes. You have to fill in the blurb about yourself, and if you have a paper to review, you have to finish that and submit it!
    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012
    Oh, and the scholastica team just emailed me to say the issue with old arxiv identifiers will be fixed in the next few days.
    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorDavid Speyer
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012
    I just submitted a PDF file, not from the arXiv. Definitely one of the easiest submission interfaces I've ever dealt with.

    I was going to say "if this gets off the ground, you'll probably want an option to submit LaTeX and have Scholastica compile it for you, since it would be convenient for editors to have access to the source file without having to go through the arXiv." But I recently submitted a paper to Compositio and discovered, to my surprise, that they are also missing this option!
    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012
    @David S - having a LaTeX option would be good for double blind refereeing - the author's name and other identifying data could be removed from the plain tex file before compilation. This would most likely need human intervention though, and as far as I understand it the system is looking at being as automated as possible.
    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012

    @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…

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012

    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 :-)

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorBas Spitters
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012

    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

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012

    I just successfully uploaded an old-style arXiv article so based solely on one data point, it works.

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012
    And I just put an old hep-th paper I coauthored up and it worked ok. I tried using the 8-digit identifier that the arXiv Front uses for the paper, but that failed (just thought I'd try it in case that was something the arXiv recognised)
    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorCharles Rezk
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorTom Leinster
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012

    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.)

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorDavid Speyer
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012
    The e-mails asking me to referee don't provide nearly as much information as I would expect. I don't get an opportunity to view the manuscript first, I don't learn the author's name, I don't even know how many pages it is! I would want all of that information before deciding whether or not to review a paper.

    Also, there is only one text box, for suggesting other referees, on the declining page. Most journals also have a second one for confidential notes to the editor. (E.g. "this author has a reputation for subtle errors, find a careful reader".)
    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorCam McLeman
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012

    Thirding David’s remarks. I’ve actually already asked the Scholastica folks for more scope for communication while accepting and declining.

    • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012
    • (edited Feb 17th 2012)

    @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. :-)

    • CommentRowNumber29.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012
    • (edited Feb 17th 2012)

    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?

    • CommentRowNumber30.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012

    @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?

    • CommentRowNumber31.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber32.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012

    @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.

    • CommentRowNumber33.
    • CommentAuthorCam McLeman
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012

    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?)

    • CommentRowNumber34.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012
    The points really put me off too. The publishing infrastructure they are building looks OK (although I really don't think lack of this sort of software is the real bottleneck for journal publishing). However, the gamified "conversation" aspect of Scholastica seems like a real problem. My impression is that there's a small group of people who really love this sort of thing, a large group who don't care much, and a small to medium group who actively dislike it. If I'm right about this, then building it into the infrastructure is a mistake.
    • CommentRowNumber35.
    • CommentAuthorJohn Iskra
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012
    Henry 34: I agree completely.
    • CommentRowNumber36.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012

    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…

    • CommentRowNumber37.
    • CommentAuthorDavid Speyer
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012
    Can I make some more minor complaints? My list of important action items includes "Get to know other scholars by adding a picture to your profile.".

    No thank you. I maintain my web presence at my webpage and my blog, both of which are under my control. I have no interest in trusting this sort of self-promotion to some third party social-networking site. If Scholastica wants to be some sort of facebook of academia on the side, they can do that, but please don't try to convince me this is an important action item like filing a referee report. Maybe I'm the only one who finds this annoying.

    On an even more minor note, why does the interface say "Hi David" and not "Hello Professor Speyer"? Not that I care, but when I write to a mathematician whom I haven't met, I usually address them by title.
    • CommentRowNumber38.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012
    • (edited Feb 17th 2012)

    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.

  1. David 37: Absolutely right!

    The only good point I found is the very simple interface, though it is sometimes too simple. I do like the idea of having a sort of universal gateway for submitting/reviewing papers for multiple journals. If a bunch of interesting journals were set up on scholastica, then I would probably keep using it for that reason alone.

    The social aspects don't interest me at all. I suppose that could change if they add some useful multimedia features such as broadcasting seminar or conference talks and video conferencing for remote collaboration. If they also added a way to share handwritten notes, I would be sold. Other social aspects seem like yet another way to waste time...
    • CommentRowNumber40.
    • CommentAuthorCam McLeman
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012

    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).