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).
  1. I do not know if you know about the scholarly kitchen, a blog that seems to diligently support commercial publishing, with arguments that make me think it is designed to shape (specialized) public opinion. From time to time I drop a comment to give some contradiction, but I start to be very upset (especially with the blogger Kent Anderson), and this might undermine the quality of my comments.

    I would like to know if there you think it is worth showing a regular presence there, and whether other people would like to contribute to this.

    By the way, I ended up to somewhat backing up Gold OA because it is like no other kind OA is known over there, but I still think it is not a good model for mathematics and other low-cost research, while it might be in other fields.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2012

    I often disagree with the bloggers there, but they dig up some pretty interesting information (for example, about citation cartels) so it’s worth reading.

    What I find most frustrating about commenting is that most of the time, what I want to say amounts to “mathematics publishing is not like medical publishing”. Unfortunately, I think the public debate is going to be primarily about biology and medicine, and the best we can hope for is just to remind people periodically that this is not a universal model for publishing.

  2. @Henry Cohn: I agree with what you say, but we mathematician should not consider we are alone to reject the current publishing system, some physicists and biologists are even ahead of us in this respect; and some of the theses defended on the SK are offensive to all or most fields.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeJun 19th 2012

    Definitely, it’s not just (or even mainly) about math. The real problem is that the goals and needs can vary between fields, and practically nobody has a really broad perspective. One of the reasons I find SK fascinating is seeing what things look like to someone like Kent Anderson, but it drives me nuts when he generalizes far beyond the scope of his experience.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMark C. Wilson
    • CommentTimeJun 21st 2013
    • (edited Jun 21st 2013)

    My OA news feed brought up an article from SK. Not directly relevant to mathematics, and only for the strong of stomach: impact factor article.

    It is very hard to understand the purpose of that site, without thinking dark thoughts about dirty tricks. Does anyone here know whether any mathematical publishers are involved there?