5 ms·

> we need mechanisms to compare researchers working in different subdisciplines, for researchers to "prove" to the community at large that they're doing good wo

by euyyn 10y ago

> we need mechanisms to compare researchers working in different subdisciplines, for researchers to "prove" to the community at large that they're doing good work. But the acceptance into those journals is decided by editors, with the same thought process of the hiring committee. What makes their decision any more valuable?

mrkgnao 10y ago
Each journal focuses on a specific subfield of math/CS/$SUBJECT, so they can make more informed evaluations on the quality of the research than an expert in some other field can.
- lisper 10y ago
  OK, but then why don't the editorial board of these journals just get together to do reviews and jettison the ridiculously high overhead of the publishers, and the concomitant games with copyrights and paywalls needed to sustain that overhead? I mean, seriously, it's 2016. When was the last time you read a paper printed on actual paper?
  - dagw 10y ago
    When was the last time you read a paper printed on actual paper? I know it's not what you meant, but I almost always print out papers before reading them.
    - lisper 10y ago
      Yes, I should have said: when was the last time you read a paper in a bound journal printed by a publisher?
- euyyn 10y ago
  Sorry but that's not the point GP was making: > One thinks that underwater basketweaving is overhyped. Another thinks that great work was done in the eighties, but all the interesting questions have been solved already. Then he cites three general Math journals as what the hiring committee can use to rank the candidates, not a journal specialized in underwater basket-weaving.