Category Archives: Professional

Open Access Week

Open Access Week was low-key at UoA this year. I couldn’t attend a talk by Matt McGregor from Creative Commons Aoteoroa – here are the slides. I was on a panel discussion concerning measures of research impact, which included Jason Priem of ImpactStory and Andrew Preston of Publons.Thanks to Fabiana Kubke and Siouxsie Wiles for organizing.

The peer review system for research

The disclaimer

In the last few years I have often read about the crisis in scholarly (mostly scientific) peer review.
I share the belief that the current system is surely suboptimal and must be changed. Much of what I say below is not original: I have read so many posts and books by Tim Gowers, Bjoern Brembs, Mike Taylor, Michael Nielsen, Michael Eisen, Noam Nisan, and many other people, that I can’t remember them all. I have a year’s experience as managing editor of an open access no-fee journal, two years’ experience as an editor (= referee) for a Hindawi journal, and many years experience as a journal referee. My research area is mathematics and various applications, so there may be some discipline-specific assumptions that don’t work for other fields. And it is not possible to cover every issue in a blog post, so I don’t claim to be comprehensive.

The latest online furore was occasioned by a so-called “sting” operation published in Science (unlike most articles in that magazine, this one is freely readable). I don’t think it worth commenting in detail on that specific article. It tells us little we didn’t know already, and missed a big opportunity to do a more comprehensive study. It does show by example that pre-publication peer review can fail spectacularly. Some other (often amusing) instances from the last few years involve computer-generated papers that are much low quality than the one submitted by Science, presumably accepted by computer-generated editors (even mathematics is not immune and some journals have done this more than once).

Some people have claimed that these weaknesses in peer review are exacerbated by the pay-to-publish model (they are certainly not exclusive to such journals, as the examples above, some published by Elsevier in toll access journals, show). This model certainly does lead to clear incentives for “Gold OA” journals to publish very weak papers. However, since authors have to pay, there are countervailing incentives for authors. If the reward system is poorly organized (as it seems to be in China, for example), then authors may still choose these predatory journals. But since papers in them are unlikely to be read or cited much, it seems unlikely to create a large problem. Journal reputation counts too – most predatory journals receive few submissions, for good reason. The existence of many low quality outlets (which predates the rise of open access journals) is a nuisance and possible trap for inexperienced researchers, and reduces the signal/noise ratio, but is not the main problem.

The main problem is: the currently dominant model of pre-publication peer review by a small number of people who don’t receive any proper payment for their time, either in money or reputation, is unlikely to achieve the desired quality control, no matter how expert these reviewers are. Furthermore, our post-publication system of review to ensure reliability is rudimentary, and corrections and retractions are not well integrated into the literature.

Both deliberate fraud (still quite rare, given the reputational risks, but apparently much more common than I would have thought) and works that are “not even wrong” and thus can’t be checked (poorly designed experiments, mathematical gibberish, etc) slip through far too often. It is bad enough that there are too many interesting papers to read, and then a lot of solid but uninteresting ones. Having to waste time with, or be fooled by, papers that are unreliable is inefficient for readers, and allowing this to go on creates wrong incentives for unscrupulous authors.

It seems now that “publication” doesn’t mean much, since the barrier is so low. A research paper now has no more status than a seminar talk (perhaps less in many cases). Self-publication on the internet is simple. There are so many journals that almost anything can be published eventually. How can we find the interesting and reliable research?

The only good solution that I can see involves the following steps. Clear proposals along these lines have been made by by Tim Gowers and by Yann LeCun.

  • adopt the open research model

    This means more than just making the polished research article freely available. It includes circulation of preliminary results and data. Certainly a paper that doesn’t allow readers to make their own conclusions from the data should be considered anecdotal and not even wrong. Imagine a mathematics paper that doesn’t give any proofs.

  • decouple “peer review” from publication

    There can be two kinds of services: assistance (writing tips, pointers to literature, spotting errors) with the paper before it is ready for “publication”, and comment and rating services (which can give more refined grades on quality, not just the current yes/no score.)

    Journal peer review focuses on the second type, but only gives yes/no scores (sometimes, a recommendation to submit to another journal). Computer science conferences are good for the first type of review, in my experience, but bad at the second. The first type of service was is offered by Rubriq, Peerage of Science, Science Open Reviewed. The second type is currently offered by Publons, SelectedPapers.net (no ratings yet), PubPeer.

    This allows people with more time to specialize in reviewing, rather than writing. And they should get credit for it! A colleague in our mathematics department told me in June that he had just received his 40th referee request for the year. He is too busy writing good papers to do anything like that amount of work. Yet PhD students and postdocs, or retired researchers, or those with good training whose job description does include intensive research (such as teaching colleges) could do this job well. To keep this post from getting even longer, I will not discuss anonymity in reviewing, but it is an important topic.

    Other advantages are that post-publication review boards could bid for papers, so the best ones are reviewed quickly by the best reviewers, multiple review boards could review papers, and reviews are not wasted by being hidden in a particular journal’s editorial process.

  • decouple “significance” from inherent quality measures

    Journals also routinely reject on grounds of their own idea of “significance”, which is inefficient (especially when they publish “important” work that is “not even wrong”). The real determination of how important and interesting a paper is can only be done after publication and takes a long time. In some fields, replication must be attempted before importance can be determined. PLoS does this kind of filtering and seems to be successful. Pre-registration of experimental trials which will lead to publication whatever the result, and registered replication reports, are other ways to reduce the bias toward “glamour mag science”.

  • if you want attention for your work, you may have to pay for it

    There ought to be a barrier to consuming expert time. It is limited, and refereeing junk papers for free is a big waste of it. I would like to see a situation where it costs authors something (money, reputation points, in-kind work) to command attention from someone else (if the work is exciting enough that people will do it for free, then so much the better). This doesn’t preclude authors making drafts available and seeking freely given feedback. However, more detailed pre-publication attention might be obtained by various means: give seminar talks and present at conferences, pay via money or formalized reciprocal arrangement. Post-publication attention is another matter.

  • complete the feedback loop

    No system can work well unless information on performance and opinions is allowed to flow freely. Reviewers must themselves be able to be reviewed and compared. Strong ethical guidelines for reviewers should be set, and enforced. The current system allows anonymous referees to do a poor job or an excellent one, and only their editor knows both who they are and their performance level.

NZ Mathematical Society Newsletter

I have accepted the job of Editor of the New Zealand Mathematical Society Newsletter. This publication has been going since 1974, and has fallen on hard times lately. It is time for a shakeup, but this will start slowly.

Some of the old issues make very interesting reading. The very first one shows that although times have certainly changed, many features of the NZ mathematical scene remain the same. At least now we don’t have to produce the newsletter with a typewriter and cyclostyle machine!

AofA 2013

The invitation-only conference was held in Menorca 27-31 May 2013. I gave a talk there on diagonal asymptotics of combinatorial classes (paper available from my research outputs page). After missing 5 of these meetings in a row, it was good to return. The name of Philippe Flajolet was mentioned many times, and it is clear that this research community still misses him very much.

There were many very interesting talks including the longer invited ones, although the schedule was gruelling with too much time sitting down listening. Highlights for me, in no particular rank order, were:

  • Bob Sedgewick’s talk about his MOOC experiences. He urged us all to give it a try, both as producer and consumer of content.
  • Basile Morcrette showing that generating function methods can work for studying even unbalanced urn models, a nice tribute to the vision of Flajolet.
  • The survey talk of Mihyun Kang on phase transition results in random graphs.
  • Philippe Jacquet on green leader election algorithms (standard methods use too much energy in wireless networks).
  • Michael Drmota on singularity analysis of positive algebraic functions.
  • Konstantinis Panagiotiu’s survey of random k-SAT including his recent results with Coja-Oghlan.
  • The excellent organization of Conrado Martinez.

Lowlights: the hotel was isolated and although it had some good features, not completely suited to the conference. It was filled with English tourists many of whom, unfortunately, didn’t really mix well with the intellectual nature of the conference and didn’t understand how to use sunscreen. The weather was cool and the beach under attack from jellyfish who stung at least two conference participants. The talks were held in the piano bar, which had really good seats, but poor acoustics and visibility. The travel to and from Menorca was really arduous, even though I only came from San Francisco.

From the mathematical point of view, there were some interesting topics. The “Algorithms” part of AofA seemed to be even less prominent that previous years, and this may be a problem in future. A talk by Markus Nebel on Yaroslavskiy’s dual pivot quicksort showed that the old models used since the time fo Knuth are not very good at predicting actual performance, and some hard work is desperately needed there. The notion of a tradeoff between accuracy and other performance characteristics versus energy use as mentioned at least twice, and seems a promising approach.

Many community activities are planned. In particular, AofA2014 will be in Paris 16-20 June, with Donald Knuth as the Flajolet memorial lecturer.

Trying out new social media

I have been posting to this blog for well over 5 years now, and the silence is deafening, as I almost never receive any comments. It seems that this phenomenon is common. In an attempt to have a bit more conversation (without being overwhelmed) I am going to try using Google+ systematically, in addition to this blog. I think Twitter is still a step too far for me, because I don’t understand how to deal with the deluge of tweets.

This article seems a useful one for researchers new to social media.

Three (plus two) months in Berkeley

In late 2009 I started writing the post below:

I have spent 3 months in Berkeley, California as part of a sabbatical, although not affiliated formally with the university. The university, despite recent budget worries, is still very impressive, and the town is comfortable (if expensive) to live in.

The Computer Science Theory Lunch and seminars in the Wozniak Lounge in Soda Hall were enjoyable and informative. A particularly interesting talk was Why Sex? by Adi Livnat (view the associated paper). I am still on the mailing list for seminars, and this year they have some very interesting-sounding ones.

Now I am back in Berkeley, this time visiting officially (thanks to my excellent host Elchanan Mossel).
I gave a talk in the Probability seminar in the Statistics Department. This was a daunting task, given the kind of speakers they normally get. It was a good experience for me (not sure about the audience). One of the best-known people in that department is David Aldous (who, I think, attended my talk). He has some really interesting stuff on his website. I found this interview with Persi Diaconis very worthwhile.

Theory Lunch is still going on, and I have been to a talk by Shayan Oveis Gharan on the Asymmetric Travelling Salesman Problem. There is a joint Berkeley-Stanford series of talks on Data, Inference, and Society, and so far I have heard Jon Kleinberg (Cornell) on algorithmic detection of memorable phrases and Randall Lewis (Google) on the near-impossibility of measuring the returns to advertising. Further afield, a public talk by Craig Venter on synthetic life was held in a very small room (appalling organization – didn’t they think he might be a popular speaker) and was alternately incomprehensible and inspiring (I guess I should have studied some biology). There are so many interesting talks, I wouldn’t have enough time to get any work done if I went to all of them.

I do have worries about the state of Californian public finances and the impact it may have on the university system. But that’s still very good from what I have seen.

My current workflow

I doubt many will be interested in this post, but it is worth recording what I do these days. It differs a lot from how I worked 10 years ago.

My daily routine: read blogs (using subscriptions through Google Reader), check chess news at Chesscafe), check open access news at Open Access Tracking Project and math publishing discussions at Math 2.0. Check and process email (trying to keep to the philosophy of Inbox Zero, and use OmniFocus to see what I have to do, so I can Get Things Done.

Of course I use LaTeX for writing papers, but I have given up bibtex in favour of the biblatex package. I use the beamer package for producing slides for talks. I looked at some papers from 15 years ago and found they no longer compile, and I seem to have lost some macro files. I intend to (sometime) upgrade all of them to my new “house style”, which uses the fourier font package, hyperref, and other packages.

The blogs by mathematical/CS people that I currently read consistently are those by Tim Gowers (Gowers’ Weblog), Scott Aaronson (Shtetl-Optimized), Gasarch/Fortnow (Computational Complexity), Michael Mitzenmacher (My Biased Coin), Noam Nisan et al. (Algorithmic Game Theory), Daniel Lemire, Peter Cameron. I also follow the UoA statistics (Stats Chat) and computer science departmental blogs, and a few other low-traffic ones. It is probably time to revisit this list. I find that commenting on blogs is annoying – the comments come at too fast a pace, people stop reading the discussion within a few days, and the comments are scattered all over the internet.