From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/6865 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eduardo J. Dubuc" Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: science_publishers Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:03:10 -0300 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: "Eduardo J. Dubuc" NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1315264706 14777 80.91.229.12 (5 Sep 2011 23:18:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 23:18:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Categories list To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Original-X-From: majordomo@mlist.mta.ca Tue Sep 06 01:18:22 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 1R0iQn-0008NC-Vf for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 01:18:22 +0200 Original-Received: from mlist.mta.ca ([138.73.1.63]:51855) by smtpy.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1R0iPR-0002tV-FA; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:16:57 -0300 Original-Received: from majordomo by mlist.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R0iPQ-0004jU-T0 for categories-list@mlist.mta.ca; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:16:56 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:6865 Archived-At: 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/ ]