From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/6859 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marta Bunge Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: science_publishers Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 06:46:21 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: Marta Bunge NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1315092665 7634 80.91.229.12 (3 Sep 2011 23:31:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 23:31:05 +0000 (UTC) To: , Original-X-From: majordomo@mlist.mta.ca Sun Sep 04 01:31:01 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from smtpy.mta.ca ([138.73.1.128]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qzzfv-0002cs-Vx for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2011 01:31:00 +0200 Original-Received: from mlist.mta.ca ([138.73.1.63]:48535) by smtpy.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Qzze9-0004WX-8o; Sat, 03 Sep 2011 20:29:09 -0300 Original-Received: from majordomo by mlist.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qzze8-00049O-Id for categories-list@mlist.mta.ca; Sat, 03 Sep 2011 20:29:08 -0300 Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:6859 Archived-At: Dear Eduardo=2C I=2C too=2C consult ArXiv quite often=2C but I do so knowing that the artic= les in question are unrefereed preprints=2C as are lectures. This may be st= imulating but=2C even as a way to establish priority=2C it is quite dubious= . For instance=2C in ArXiv=2C one has the possibility of updating a posting= =2C and so correct mistakes or add comments received privately. I do not kn= ow if the new postings replace the old one or coexists with it.=A0The refer= ee system has its drawbacks=2C but it is normally of use=2C not only to the= readers and institutions=2C but also to the author(s). Posting in ArXiv sh= ould always be followed by a publication in a refereed journal=2C but it no= t always is.=A0As for journals in which the costs of publishing are nil=2C = we categorists have the fortune of having a reputable journal such as TAC w= here to send our papers. In this I totally agree with Mike Barr. Cahiers is= =2C to a lesser extent perhaps=2C another such instance=2C and it can now b= e accessed electronically (Numdam). There are also refereed proceedings of = festshrifts or conferences which may not be rated as high as some journals= =2C but which are part of our community life and=2C in some sense=2C a duty= that we have towards our respected colleagues.=A0As for high cost journals= =2C I once signed a pledge not to publish in any Elsevier journal=2C and ad= vertised my action in categories. Several people in this forum thought this= was stupid=2C but others praised me. It is a matter of conscience. I do no= t have a solution=2C but asking libraries to stop subscribing to prestigiou= s journals is in my view utopic. I already suggested requesting funding age= ncies and university policy makers to give higher ratings to journals which= deserve to be so considered=2C particularly when the author gives reasons = for choosing such journals rather than the high end ones. Finally=2C I (and= so=2C anyone) can access ArXiv postings without any problem- it is not har= d to locate what one wants to read in them. An excellent source of informat= ion=2C but it could never replace refereed journals.=A0 Regards=2C=A0 Marta > Date: Thu=2C 1 Sep 2011 15:26:19 -0300 > From: edubuc@dm.uba.ar > To: categories@mta.ca > Subject: categories: Re: science_publishers >=20 > Marta Bunge writes: >=20 > "it is (still) a measure of success by grant giving agencies to have > published in such journals and=2C in turn=2C a measure for promotion > considerations." >=20 > Michael Barr writes: >=20 > "Finally convince granting agencies to find better ways of measuring > impact." >=20 > This is just the real problem. Michael=2C it is not "finally"=2C but "fir= st > of all". >=20 > Once this is changed=2C high ranked journals will be in trouble. >=20 > But=2C I am afraid it will be impossible. There is an arrow in evolution= =2C > 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). >=20 > Something on the other hand can be attempted: >=20 > 1) Make a strong campaign so to popularize and convince all authors to > send their papers to the arXiv. >=20 > 2) Convince all libraries to stop all subscriptions to journals=2C and > install electronic easy to use catalogs of all arXiv papers=2C have them > in stock=2C and furnish the structure for the immediate printing of > requested papers. >=20 > Personally=2C most of the reading I am doing recently are from arXiv > papers=2C not from published papers. >=20 > On the other hand=2C the only papers which are considered for grant > soliciting=2C promotions (and even worst=2C here if you stop publishing y= ou > loose your job=2C which is at stake every 7 years) are published papers= =2C > the more high ranked (impact factor) the journal the better. >=20 > So=2C to read the work of others=2C and make your own work known=2C you w= ill > use the arXiv=2C to get ahead in your academic career you will publish > (papers which nobody will need to buy). >=20 > e.d. >=20 = [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]