Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research Citation Statistics A report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS)
This is a report about the use and misuse of citation data in the assessment of scientific research. The idea that research assessment must be done using “simple and objective” methods is increasingly prevalent today. The “simple and objective” methods are broadly interpreted as bibliometrics, that is, citation data and the statistics derived from them. There is a belief that citation statistics are inherently more accurate because they substitute simple numbers for complex judgments, and hence overcome the possible subjectivity of peer review. But this belief is unfounded.
Best Current Practices for Journals, http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/CEIC/bestpractice/bpfinal.pdf is a document endorsed by the IMU General Assembly on 16 August 2010.
Nature Materials editorial: The cost of salami slicing
UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Scientific Publications: Free for all? Tenth Report of Session 2003-04, Volume I: Report, pdf
DORA, The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, initiated by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) together with a group of editors and publishers of scholarly journals; Elsevier’s standpoint on DORA
Douglas N. Arnold, Kristine K. Fowler, Nefarious numbers, AMS Notices, arxiv/1010.0278
Arnold-Fowler also prompted
Gillespie’s blog, impact factors for statistical journals
Reciprocal Space blog sick of impact factors
Ulrich Pöschl, Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation, Front. Comput. Neurosci. 2012 doi
Guardian: Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist html
Joan S. Birman, Scientific publishing: A mathematician’s viewpoint, Notices AMS, pdf
G. Kuperberg et al., Mathematical journals should be electronic and free(ly) accessible, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 45 (1998), 845, pdf
COAR:petition against Elsevier’s sharing policy, in wake of retarded changes of April 30, 2015 by Elsevier
Gowers: a more modest proposal – a system to cooperate on suggestions to improve preprints
Rob Kirby’s list of pricing 128 math journals 1995-1999
The crisis in scientific publishing links at Univ. of Maryland
Heather Joseph, Executive Director, SPARC: prime time for public access
Oleg Pikhurko’s experience: html
For links to mathematical blogging see math blogs.
J. M. Chambers, Agnes M. Herzberg, A note on the game of refereeing, J. Royal Statistical Soc. C (Applied Statistics) 17, No. 3 (1968), 260-263, jstor
Rob Kirby, Wither Journals?, Notices AMS 59:9, 1272–1274, October 2012
Gowers announcing Episciences Project, blog from Jan 16, 2013
Nature about Episciences Project: mathematicians-aim-to-take-publishers-out-of-publishing
Open Access Explained (youtube movie 8 min)
ContributionEconomy blog about knowledge creation and diffusion
B. Brembs, M. Munafò, Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank, arxiv/1301.3748
Ian Sample (Guardian), Universities ‘get poor value’ from academic journal-publishing firms
Julia Reda, the-european-copyright-divide
The Charleston Advisor (according to wikipedia) peer-reviewed publication that reviews proprietary and free Internet resources that libraries license and make available to their patrons; the journal self-defines its content as “The critical reviews of web products for information professionals”
Elbakyan story, SciHub pseudopiracy
“This document is prompted by a shared concern among professionals in universities, that the current transition to OA is both too slow and too expensive, and furthermore that the transition on its current path risks replicating unsatisfactory aspects of the subscription journal market.”
the reaction by The Publishers Association: The Role Of Hybrid Journals In Supporting Open Access (pdf)
retraction watch blog
MathGen paper accepted: http://aperiodical.com/2012/10/advances-in-pure-nonsense, http://thatsmathematics.com/blog/archives/102, http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2012/10/17/paul-taylor/stochastically-orthogonal
the high court decision (Mrs Justice Sharp) Nature vs. El Naschie case pdf
While in court it is easier to win if somebody had a prior registration of copyright in a copyright office, in principle most of the copyright laws and patent laws in provable cases give advantage to the factual priority of the work, even if not registered. That is, every author’s work is a priori protected from the moment of creation; the registration at a copyright office just makes it easier to prove the priority in disputes.
According to some historians and anti-copyright activists, the copyright in the 19th and early 20th centuries mainly worked for the authors, while today it is structured in a way which protects mainly the publishers and less the authors. In particular, often the authors loose battles with their own publishers in attempts to make parts of their work free or published in a form which they prefer.