Category Archives: Professional

Better citation indices

Daniel Lemire and colleagues are aiming to find a better algorithm to measure importance of research articles by incorporating the context in which the citation is made (for example, distinguishing between “courtesy citations” inserted to placate referees and real pointers to important work). They need some data and it looks like a low burden for each researcher to provide it. Check out this site  for more.

I think we have passed the point of no return with bibliometrics in evaluating researchers and articles. They will be used, so it is to our benefit to ensure that less bad ones are used.

Beyond the boycott

The boycott against Elsevier has been interesting so far. I have had some discussions with colleagues, most of whom have not signed. I am still struggling to detect any principled reason: worry about destroying the “brand” of the journal (from members of an editorial board of an Elsevier journal) is the only one I can sympathize with, although the fact (opinion, at least) that Elsevier has subtracted value from these brands after buying them from other publishers should be noted. Very few people have stated their reasons for not signing – Ariel Procaccia is a welcome exception. I suspect many researchers don’t give the issue more than a passing thought, others are too timid, and others like a free ride. Perhaps a few really think the current system is good, but in that case I would have to question their fitness for research work. The main feedback I have had informally is that it is all too hard, since they own the “best” journals in my field, I am an editor of one of their journals and I like it, etc. One interesting opinion is that although it is a problem, it will soon be fixed by advances in technology. I wish I could be confident of that.

In any case Elsevier has made some grudging concessions, so I guess that this will mean fewer people feel pressure to sign up. However, researchers shouldn’t have to waste their time to get such small concessions. The current system is clearly unsustainable and it seems almost impossible to imagine the commercial incentives of a company such as Elsevier ever allowing them to do what is right for society, or science/scholarship as a whole. Thus alternatives must be explored, and now is an important time for discussion. One forum for such discussions is Math2.0, which I read often and recommend highly.

Separating out the many related issues takes time and I will write several posts. For now, I have some concrete recommendations for mathematical researchers, none of them original to me. Many take very little effort.

  • Sign the boycott petition, or at least don’t work for journals that are exploiting free labour to make large profits.
  • Practice self-archiving rigorously. Use the arXiv and update your paper to the final accepted version. List all your papers on your own webpage. Encourage all colleagues to do the same – if you want to read their paper and can’t find it on their website, ask them to put it there.
  • Familiarize yourself with the policies of the publisher on author self-archiving. Stand up for your rights as an author (see this important article by Kristine Fowler in Notices of the American Mathematical Society).
  • When citing a journal publication, also give the arXiv version of the paper (if they are essentially the same).
  • Encourage those involved in hiring and evaluation at your institution to ignore journal impact factors and use article-level metrics and other more nuanced measures.
  • Encourage granting agencies you deal with to require open access to all publications associated with grants they award.
  • If you are on an editorial board of a journal run by Elsevier or the like, talk to your co-editors about moving to another publisher with better practices, or at least registering your displeasure to the current publisher and tell them they need to change if they want to keep you. Discuss with other editors of other journals, and share approaches that work.
  • Find out what your professional society (AMS, IMU, …)  is doing about these issues, and whether its publishing arm is helping the cause of open access, or harming it. Get involved on committees in the organization where possible.
  • Talk to your institution’s librarians. Find out what they can offer in terms of institutional repositories, hosting journals, etc.

 

 

 

The Elsevier boycott

There is a lot of information available about this, including the petition page, the official statement explaining the petition,  the PolyMath journal publishing reform page. I won’t repeat that here. This is just a note to say that after an internal struggle, I have signed the petition. Some of the details of this publisher’s bad behaviour were new and rather shocking to me. It is clear that a new system for dissemination, archiving, and evaluation of research is needed, and this boycott looks like a necessary, though not sufficient, step.

 

A downside to double blind review

A discussion started by Daniel Lemire reminded me of this issue. I recently participated in refereeing for a CS conference using double-blind review. I noticed an issue that I have not seen mentioned before (for example in the IMS Ad Hoc committee report). Several papers were not accepted, but they had some good ideas. If I now write a paper building on these ideas, I have no idea whom to cite or credit. I suppose I could ask the programme chair to put us in contact, but of course that may not occur for a long time (especially given the speed at which I can write papers these days). Still, this seems an obvious drawback not shared by single-blind review.

Moshe Vardi on CS conference talks

In CACM, Moshe Vardi opines that conference talks must be improved by force, in order to justify even having a physical conference. I have long shared this opinion, although the CS talks I have heard seem better overall than the ones I recall hearing in mathematics conferences. Lance Fortnow thinks conferences as a means of scoring publication credit must give way to their core function of promoting discussion and dissemination, while journals assume the other function. I definitely agree with this.

Call for papers CATS 2012

I am a PC member for the first time.

Call for Papers

CATS 2012 — Computing: The Australasian Theory Symposium
Melbourne, Australia, January 30-February 2, 2012
http://cats.it.usyd.edu.au/

The 18th Computing: The Australasian Theory Symposium (CATS) will be
held in Melbourne, Australia, in January/February 2012. CATS is an
annual conference held in the Australia-New Zealand region, dedicated
to theoretical computer science.

Authors are invited to submit papers that present original and
unpublished research on topics related to theoretical aspects of
computer science, including (but not limited to):
– algorithms and data structures
– algorithmic game theory
– combinatorial optimization
– computability
– computational complexity theory
– computational geometry
– graph theory and combinatorics
– parallel and distributed algorithms
– logic and type systems
– program derivation, analysis, and verification
– theory of programming languages

Important dates:
– Paper submission deadline: Monday 15 August, 2011
– Acceptance notification: Monday 10 October, 2011
– Final version due: Monday 7 November, 2011
– Conference dates: Monday 30 January – Thursday 2 February, 2012

The proceedings of this event will be published by the Australian
Computer Society (ACS) in the CRPIT Series (http://crpit.com/), and
will also appear in the ACM digital library. CATS 2012 is part of the
Australasian Computer Science Week (ACSW), an international annual
conference event, supported by the Computing Research and Education
Association (CORE) in Australia. ACSW 2012 is hosted by RMIT
University in Melbourne, Australia.

For more information please visit http://cats.it.usyd.edu.au/
Contact: Julian Mestre <cats2012@easychair.org>