4 ms·

> If people want to have a political argument, take it elsewhere For example the Intelligencer? So why did folks cause a ruckus to prevent that? Not having a

> If people want to have a political argument, take it elsewhere For example the Intelligencer? So why did folks cause a ruckus to prevent that? Not having a political argument in a journal also means having freedom from politics. That was denied to both the Intelligencer (by outside parties) and NYJM (arguably by both outside parties and the editor who rushed in that paper). > It's particularly galling that the political people had so infested NYJM that they decided to simply dispense with the formality of peer review in the case of this particular paper. I agree - however, NYJM wasn't the first episode of the paper but (so far) the last. > Please, TRY to be reasonable here. I'm not saying you can't have the flame wars you want to have, I'm just asking that we not put low quality science or math papers in peer reviewed journals. Especially papers so low quality that you feel the need to exempt them from peer review lest they not get published. Here I disagree. First, the plea to be "reasonable": I think I'm quite reasonable asking to undo the damage by undue interference. Second, I don't think scientists will have issues handling a properly annotated paper (ie "we publish it here not for its quality but because some people want to keep it hidden for non-scientific reasons") in a sensible way.

bilbo0s 8y ago
>"we publish it here not for its quality but because some people want to keep it hidden for non-scientific reasons" You can't be serious. Here's how it should work, ideas that survive rigorous examination should be published, because that is how merit is measured in the context of peer reviewed journals. What else are scientific and mathematical ideas to be judged on if not merit? So now we'll allow people to be published because of popularity? Or lack of popularity? Or who has the best hair style? I think I'm done here. You guys have a nice rest of your day.
- pgeorgi 8y ago
  Either my communication style is horrible or you go to great lengths to misunderstand me. Either way it's sad. Papers should, in general, be judged by their merit. The editor of the Intelligencer did so and wanted to publish it in "Viewpoints", essentially an op-ed section. That was shot down. Not for quality, or unsuitability for the medium, but because of a political campaign. Therefore the paper was _not_ judged for its merit. Somebody ought to make it whole - ideally the Intelligencer, but I can understand if they don't want to take on the dumpster fire again that is political activism in academia. Second best is another journal that could open with a disclaimer like above to clarify what's going on. Both to give closure to an author who is in a state that shouldn't happen in academic publishing (published but not published) and to make clear that scientific merit is what decides what ends up in a journal and not activists. -- Somewhat but not quite unrelated: I predict that we'll see a similar situation (a minor paper left in limbo after it got depublished due to unscientific activism and backroom pressure) in a couple of years again (within the next 5 years), with some progressive topic being suppressed. I also predict that there will tons of outrage over that by the very same activists that are very pleased with themselves today over the outcome of the current campaign.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    You can simplify the discussion here by clarifying what you think of the paper's inclusion in NYJM. The paper's status in Intelligencer is of much less impact to the "scientific precedent" of this story, since the Intelligencer is barely science at all.
    - pgeorgi 8y ago
      The way it was done? Problematic to say the least, in every step taken at NYJM: 1. The underground inclusion by a single editor, seemingly bypassing their processes and the other editors 2. The revisions to politicize the paper explicitly (potentially on request of that editor) 3. Lack of context on how and why that paper ended up in the journal even though it's not in line with its normal body of work 4. The silent removal, again bypassing publishing processes (eg retraction) 5. The reuse of the pages taken up by the paper with some other paper. Depending on how this turns out, the new paper will be in the uncomfortable position that its citations are mixed up with citations for another, controversial paper. It might have been better to leave the pages empty except for some explanation about what happened to the paper that used to be there, if only to keep it fair for the new paper. All around it's a mess. Why I'm referring to the Intelligencer all the time is that Hill and Tabachnikov wanted to place it in the Intelligencer first, and they likely knew about its standing in the math community, so they probably agree with your assessment of the paper's mathematical value. At least as told by Hill, NYJM only entered the picture because a mob forced the Intelligencer to give up and then because Rivin turned up, and considered a fast track possible (and then, it seems, doctored the process at NYJM to implement that "quick referee"). I consider mob rule a bigger threat to publishing at large than a one-off weak paper that went in. We have enough of the latter (and while we should strive to minimize them, we could live with one more), but IMHO we need to discourage the former before it becomes the new normal. Therefore my proposal to publish it somewhere of at least equivalent stature (to the Intelligencer, the original publication the paper should end up in) that offended bilbo0s so much: show the mob that backroom campaigning isn't welcome. I'd prefer it done with proper processes and a big, fat disclaimer though, not like what apparently happened at NYJM.
      - 8y ago
kaitai 8y ago
Dude. I'm a mathematician. I write papers with reasonable mathematics. Sometimes I write snarky comments here or in blog posts. Neither just gets to be published in the Intelligencer because I want. The Intelligencer is not a public square. It's a paper publication that gets to pick what it wants to print. Publish it freely on the ArXiV or whatever, but this argument that some publication has to publish because "politics" or "freedom" or whatever... why don't I get to throw a tantrum & get them to publish my stuff (which is actually math!) so I can get a raise? I need a raise. Admittedly, I'd aim for Advances instead of the Intelligencer!
- reitanqild 8y ago
  > It's a paper publication that gets to pick what it wants to print. Apparently not?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

bilbo0s 8y ago

>"we publish it here not for its quality but because some people want to keep it hidden for non-scientific reasons" You can't be serious. Here's how it should work, ideas that survive rigorous examination should be published, because that is how merit is measured in the context of peer reviewed journals. What else are scientific and mathematical ideas to be judged on if not merit? So now we'll allow people to be published because of popularity? Or lack of popularity? Or who has the best hair style? I think I'm done here. You guys have a nice rest of your day.

pgeorgi 8y ago
Either my communication style is horrible or you go to great lengths to misunderstand me. Either way it's sad. Papers should, in general, be judged by their merit. The editor of the Intelligencer did so and wanted to publish it in "Viewpoints", essentially an op-ed section. That was shot down. Not for quality, or unsuitability for the medium, but because of a political campaign. Therefore the paper was _not_ judged for its merit. Somebody ought to make it whole - ideally the Intelligencer, but I can understand if they don't want to take on the dumpster fire again that is political activism in academia. Second best is another journal that could open with a disclaimer like above to clarify what's going on. Both to give closure to an author who is in a state that shouldn't happen in academic publishing (published but not published) and to make clear that scientific merit is what decides what ends up in a journal and not activists. -- Somewhat but not quite unrelated: I predict that we'll see a similar situation (a minor paper left in limbo after it got depublished due to unscientific activism and backroom pressure) in a couple of years again (within the next 5 years), with some progressive topic being suppressed. I also predict that there will tons of outrage over that by the very same activists that are very pleased with themselves today over the outcome of the current campaign.
- tptacek 8y ago
  You can simplify the discussion here by clarifying what you think of the paper's inclusion in NYJM. The paper's status in Intelligencer is of much less impact to the "scientific precedent" of this story, since the Intelligencer is barely science at all.
  - pgeorgi 8y ago
    The way it was done? Problematic to say the least, in every step taken at NYJM: 1. The underground inclusion by a single editor, seemingly bypassing their processes and the other editors 2. The revisions to politicize the paper explicitly (potentially on request of that editor) 3. Lack of context on how and why that paper ended up in the journal even though it's not in line with its normal body of work 4. The silent removal, again bypassing publishing processes (eg retraction) 5. The reuse of the pages taken up by the paper with some other paper. Depending on how this turns out, the new paper will be in the uncomfortable position that its citations are mixed up with citations for another, controversial paper. It might have been better to leave the pages empty except for some explanation about what happened to the paper that used to be there, if only to keep it fair for the new paper. All around it's a mess. Why I'm referring to the Intelligencer all the time is that Hill and Tabachnikov wanted to place it in the Intelligencer first, and they likely knew about its standing in the math community, so they probably agree with your assessment of the paper's mathematical value. At least as told by Hill, NYJM only entered the picture because a mob forced the Intelligencer to give up and then because Rivin turned up, and considered a fast track possible (and then, it seems, doctored the process at NYJM to implement that "quick referee"). I consider mob rule a bigger threat to publishing at large than a one-off weak paper that went in. We have enough of the latter (and while we should strive to minimize them, we could live with one more), but IMHO we need to discourage the former before it becomes the new normal. Therefore my proposal to publish it somewhere of at least equivalent stature (to the Intelligencer, the original publication the paper should end up in) that offended bilbo0s so much: show the mob that backroom campaigning isn't welcome. I'd prefer it done with proper processes and a big, fat disclaimer though, not like what apparently happened at NYJM.
    - 8y ago

kaitai 8y ago

Dude. I'm a mathematician. I write papers with reasonable mathematics. Sometimes I write snarky comments here or in blog posts. Neither just gets to be published in the Intelligencer because I want. The Intelligencer is not a public square. It's a paper publication that gets to pick what it wants to print. Publish it freely on the ArXiV or whatever, but this argument that some publication has to publish because "politics" or "freedom" or whatever... why don't I get to throw a tantrum & get them to publish my stuff (which is actually math!) so I can get a raise? I need a raise. Admittedly, I'd aim for Advances instead of the Intelligencer!

reitanqild 8y ago
> It's a paper publication that gets to pick what it wants to print. Apparently not?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]