Re: Elsevier

[selinger@mathstat.dal.ca (Peter Selinger)]

I have found that what mathematicians call a "conference" is similar to
what computer scientists usually call a "workshop" - almost everybody
who submits an on-topic abstract can talk, modulo basic sanity checks,
and sometimes on a first-come-first-served basis.

What computer scientists call a "conference" often involves fairly
careful refereeing (by multiple referees) and doesn't seem to exist in
mathematics. The refereeing is often to check for originality,
timeliness, and interest, rather than correctness.

What mathematicians call a "workshop" is often an affair where the
organizers invite their friends to give talks. Sometimes a few short
contributed talks may be accepted if there are empty slots, but
usually there is no (or only a token) public call for contributions.
This type of workshop also exists in computer science, although it is
less common. And some mathematics workshops follow the first pattern
above.

-- Peter

Michael Barr wrote:
>
> A propos what Vaughan says, conferences in math are not seriously
> refereed, often not refereed at all.  This makes conference proceedings
> useless for promotions and also for research grants.  Like it or not, this
> is one of the main reasons mathematicians tend to ignore conference
> proceedings.  But CS conferences are generally carefully refereed with the
> results Vaughan mentioned.
>
> There are a number of reasons for this, I suppose but the overwhelming one
> is how hard it is to get read a paper in math, with a concomitant
> difficulty in getting serious refereeing.  I note that CS journals usually
> want two and sometimes three referees to recommend a paper.  With rare
> exceptions (Wiles, the Hales's paper on the Kepler conjecture, Perlman,
> should he choose to publish) that is almost unheard of in math.  I was on
> the committee that chose the papers for last summers conference in Nova
> Scotia and only a couple papers were turned down and they were jokes.
>
> How about a journal called J. Topology.  The owners of Topology cannot
> object to that.
>
> Yes, Cahiers is a good choice.  And while many thanks must go to Andree
> for keeping it going all these many years, first we have to thank Charles
> Ehresmann for starting it.
>
> Michael
>
>