Re: science_publishers

["Eduardo J. Dubuc" <edubuc@dm.uba.ar>]

Marta Bunge writes:

"it is (still) a measure of success by grant giving agencies to have
published in such journals and, in turn, a measure for promotion
considerations."

Michael Barr writes:

"Finally convince granting agencies to find better ways of measuring
impact."

This is just the real problem. Michael, it is not "finally", but "first
of all".

Once this is changed, high ranked journals will be in trouble.

But, I am afraid it will be impossible. There is an arrow in evolution,
and this arrow points into the fact that journals rankings and impact
factors are going to be more and more determinant for the academic
career of 99% of the mathematicians (expet for the future few
Grothendiecks Serres Cartans and the like).

Something on the other hand can be attempted:

1) Make a strong campaign so to popularize and convince all authors to
send their papers to the arXiv.

2) Convince all libraries to stop all subscriptions to journals, and
install electronic easy to use catalogs of all arXiv papers, have them
in stock, and furnish the structure for the immediate printing of
requested papers.

Personally, most of the reading I am doing recently are from arXiv
papers, not from published papers.

On the other hand, the only papers which are considered for grant
soliciting, promotions (and even worst, here if you stop publishing you
loose your job, which is at stake every 7 years) are published papers,
the more high ranked (impact factor) the journal the better.

So, to read the work of others, and make your own work known, you will
use the arXiv, to get ahead in your academic career you will publish
(papers which nobody will need to buy).

e.d.

[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]