Re: science_publishers

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

Dear Marta, your msage does not contemplate the arXiv under the role I
gave it in my msage. For me, in that msage, the arXiv is only considered
as a meduim to broadcast your work. Only that.


On 03/09/11 07:46, Marta Bunge wrote:
> Dear Eduardo,
>
> I, too, consult ArXiv quite often, but I do so knowing that the
> articles in question are unrefereed preprints, as are lectures.

perfect,whai is the problem ?

> This
> may be stimulating but, even as a way to establish priority, it is
> quite dubious.

I was not thinking at all as a way to establish priority

> For instance, in ArXiv, one has the possibility of
> updating a posting, and so correct mistakes or add comments received
> privately. I do not know if the new postings replace the old one or
> coexists with it.

and so, you read the arXive to see if it is useful for your work. You
have to read the proofs to see if the statements are true. YOU are the
referee in a way.

> The referee system has its drawbacks, but it is
> normally of use, not only to the  readers and institutions, but also
> to the author(s). Posting in ArXiv should always be followed by a
> publication in a refereed journal, but it not always is.

Yes, so as to make any good in your curriculum, the higher the impact
factor (or ISI or whatever) the better. But it is completely IRRELEVANT
for those that will actually understand and use your work. !! .

As for the referee trouble, yes, I agree many times it is useful for
both ends.

> As for
> journals in which the costs of publishing are nil, we categorists
> have the fortune of having a reputable journal such as TAC where to
> send our papers. In this I totally agree with Mike Barr. Cahiers is,
> to a lesser extent perhaps, another such instance, and it can now be
> accessed electronically (Numdam). There are also refereed proceedings
> of festshrifts or conferences which may not be rated as high as some
> journals, but which are part of our community life and, in some
> sense, a duty  that we have towards our respected colleagues. As for
> high cost journals, I once signed a pledge not to publish in any
> Elsevier journal, and advertised my action in categories. Several
> people in this forum thought this  was stupid, but others praised me.
> It is a matter of conscience. I do not have a solution, but asking
> libraries to stop subscribing to prestigious journals is in my view
> utopic.

Probably,

> I already suggested requesting funding agencies and
> university policy makers to give higher ratings to journals which
> deserve to be so considered, particularly when the author gives
> reasons for choosing such journals rather than the high end ones.

This is also utopic. If I said I do not publish this paper in Annals of
mathematics, which I can perfectly do, by a matter of conscience, It is
clear that for nobody in any evaluation comitee (even by peers) this
declaration will have any value.

> Finally, I (and  so, anyone) can access ArXiv postings without any
> problem- it is not hard to locate what one wants to read in them. An
> excellent source of information, but it could never replace refereed
> journals.

Depends for what? . When the matter is to make your work known, it is
even better than refereed journals.


Actually, I think the first reason and "raison d'etre" of the journals
at the time if their creation (19 th century or before) was the
diffusion of correct knowledge. Now it has degenerate in curriculum
build up. To diffusion of knowledge (right or wrong) we have the arXiv.
The interested reader is its own referee. What is the problem ?. To
utilize results (trusting a referee) without having taken the trouble to
verify and understand the proofs it is not a good way to do mathematics.
So, why care if the paper has been refereed or not ?

> Regards,
>
> Marta

many regards    e.d.
>
>

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