Dear Eduardo, I, too, consult ArXiv quite often, but I do so knowing that the articles in question are unrefereed preprints, as are lectures. This may be stimulating but, even as a way to establish priority, it is quite dubious. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Regards, Marta
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:26:19 -0300 From: edubuc@dm.uba.ar To: categories@mta.ca Subject: categories: Re: science_publishers
Marta Bunge writes:
"it is (still) a measure of success by grant giving agencies to have published in such journals and, in turn, a measure for promotion considerations."
Michael Barr writes:
"Finally convince granting agencies to find better ways of measuring impact."
This is just the real problem. Michael, it is not "finally", but "first of all".
Once this is changed, high ranked journals will be in trouble.
But, I am afraid it will be impossible. There is an arrow in evolution, and this arrow points into the fact that journals rankings and impact factors are going to be more and more determinant for the academic career of 99% of the mathematicians (expet for the future few Grothendiecks Serres Cartans and the like).
Something on the other hand can be attempted:
1) Make a strong campaign so to popularize and convince all authors to send their papers to the arXiv.
2) Convince all libraries to stop all subscriptions to journals, and install electronic easy to use catalogs of all arXiv papers, have them in stock, and furnish the structure for the immediate printing of requested papers.
Personally, most of the reading I am doing recently are from arXiv papers, not from published papers.
On the other hand, the only papers which are considered for grant soliciting, promotions (and even worst, here if you stop publishing you loose your job, which is at stake every 7 years) are published papers, the more high ranked (impact factor) the journal the better.
So, to read the work of others, and make your own work known, you will use the arXiv, to get ahead in your academic career you will publish (papers which nobody will need to buy).
e.d.
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]