That arXiv questionnaire, and other news

[Posted on april 16, 2016]

Filling that arXiv questionnaire (now offline) was interesting. No idea how many people answered, and more importantly how biased that sample will turn out to be. I hope, for the sake of transparency, that they’ll quickly make the numbers freely available (the free-comment sections are of course private).

Also, it’s informative to see how varied opinions can be. I do agree with some points made by Izabella Laba in her blog post : no comments please (think low quality MO questions that quickly and deservedly get many downvotes, or the sometimes very irrelevant comments made by amateurs on blogs). That would surely drive lots of serious folks away. Some people agree, others don’t. On the other hand,  flagging “substantial overlap” could be useful if properly defined, IMHO.

As for citations stats and tools, taking a well-known preprint that never got formally published, by just clicking on the NASA ADS link one easily gets useful citation tools, while the blog trackbacks are suitably moderated. Not sure what could be added on top of that.

In other news :

  • topically, a math.GM paper on Navier-Stokes made it to a local story
  • a wonderfully clear and interesting talk by Mireille Bousquet-Mélou at CIRM (in french, but with slides in english) on plane lattice paths avoiding a quadrant, a topic related to a series of works done in the past 15 years by lots of people (and where many nice things occur, like the issue of finiteness or not of a certain group naturally associated to the path counting method)

  • an interview of Manjul Bhargava in CNRS News made after the conference mentioned in the previous post
  • a job ad for a mathematician in the gaming industry in Dublin
Advertisements

One Response to “That arXiv questionnaire, and other news”

  1. anon Says:

    ADS only tracks citations in papers posted on arxiv or published in (astro)physics journals, so it probably lacks many citations in mathematics. But I agree that arxiv itself probably can’t (nor should) start tracking citations made in all scientific journals, so I don’t see what they would want to achieve with this. As far as I know, arxiv already flags (substantial) overlap with papers posted on arxiv. I’m not sure what else they would plan to do here either.

    I agree that comments are likely to cause more trouble than good. In general I think arxiv should just stick to what works. One thing that should be improved is transparency. From what I’ve understood (I don’t have personal experience with this), some papers get rejected from arxiv and even some people blacklisted with no explanation. It’s important to do at least some sort of crackpot-filtering, but the mostly anonymous moderators sometimes seem to be a bit to eager in that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: