Re: Science Citation Index

[Patrik Eklund <peklund@cs.umu.se>]

Probably is and probably isn't.

I wrote a paper some years ago which eventually was published and the
journal is SCI listed. Our paper contained some keyword like monads and
n-categories and stuff, and we liked the paper, we still do. The reviewers
didn't always, but the editor eventually took the decision. In
correspondence with the editor it was like "... even if only a few in the
world will understand, it is not a reason not to publish ...". I should
say that the editor (thanks again!, if you read this, and my apologies for
using our correspondence as an example) saw the potential for
applications as well, which the reviewers did not.

Once in a while I communicate within the most theoretical communicates. I
feel humble and I realize how little I know, and I want to build upon
that. On the other hand, I want to build things that are useful, that
improves the world around me a little bit further. And I want to combine
the two!

Certainly, and please do not stand up and go just yet, certainly
categorists are doing great and also very very useful things. But simply,
is it enough? Can we do more? Do we reach out?

Why are computations efficient? Because we have grids. Why do aeroplanes
fly. Because we have matrices. And so on. It would be nice to hear
something like: How did we save global economy? With categories.

By the way, can anyone point at some category theory success stories, that
could be explained in evening news?

Patrik



On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, John Baez wrote:

> Dear category theorists -
>
> Thomson Scientific runs the well-known "Science Citation Index", which
> "provides researchers, administrators, faculty, and students with quick,
> powerful access to the bibliographic and citation information they need to
> find relevant, comprehensive research data".  I believe data from this index
> is used in tenure and promotion decisions at some universities.
>
> I just heard that "Theory and Applications of Categories" and "Cahiers" are
> not listed on the Science Citation Index, while - for example - Elsevier's
> journal "Homeopathy" is listed there.
>
> Is this true?  Is there some way to improve the situation?
>
> Best,
> jb
>
>