4 ms·

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 me

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.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    You think it's a good idea to publish an off-topic paper in a serious scientific journal to make a point about mob rule? Aren't you then the one arguing to muck with the scientific record on behalf of a political agenda?
    - pgeorgi 8y ago
      "At least the same stature" as the Intelligencer (which had agreed to publish it originally and retracted due to reasons that were not scientific concerns). A paper that is, as you noted, "not serious". I guess that doesn't apply to the NYJM, but I didn't ask for them to be the journal doing the publishing (just noted that their approach of dealing with the fallout of Rivin's machinations was unfortunate). If push came to shove and I'd be on the board of editors of a publication of same or higher posture than an affected publication with overlapping audience, I hope I'd at least consider doing that (but as mentioned: not through subterfugue, but officially). That's political, but in a way it's merely self-preservation: Niemöller's poem "First they came ..." and all that.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        I think I agree with you about the Intelligencer, at least to the extent that I don't think it matters what the Intelligencer does. But I disagree with you that a real journal has a duty to maintain a bad-faith off-topic out-of-process submission. That's a disservice to the cite record.
        yorwba 8y ago
        Not following process is a disservice to the cite record, correct. Citations rely heavily on the assumption that you can refer you reader to a range of pages in a journal and they will be able to unambiguously determine the paper you are referring to. So completely removing a paper that was published in violation of process is a process violation itself, undermining the reliability of citations. At least they replaced it by a paper of the same length, hopefully preventing any following papers from moving around, but they really shouldn't reuse space like that. Especially considering it's an online journal where pages are essentially free.

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.
- tptacek 8y ago
  You think it's a good idea to publish an off-topic paper in a serious scientific journal to make a point about mob rule? Aren't you then the one arguing to muck with the scientific record on behalf of a political agenda?
  - pgeorgi 8y ago
    "At least the same stature" as the Intelligencer (which had agreed to publish it originally and retracted due to reasons that were not scientific concerns). A paper that is, as you noted, "not serious". I guess that doesn't apply to the NYJM, but I didn't ask for them to be the journal doing the publishing (just noted that their approach of dealing with the fallout of Rivin's machinations was unfortunate). If push came to shove and I'd be on the board of editors of a publication of same or higher posture than an affected publication with overlapping audience, I hope I'd at least consider doing that (but as mentioned: not through subterfugue, but officially). That's political, but in a way it's merely self-preservation: Niemöller's poem "First they came ..." and all that.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      I think I agree with you about the Intelligencer, at least to the extent that I don't think it matters what the Intelligencer does. But I disagree with you that a real journal has a duty to maintain a bad-faith off-topic out-of-process submission. That's a disservice to the cite record.
      - yorwba 8y ago
        Not following process is a disservice to the cite record, correct. Citations rely heavily on the assumption that you can refer you reader to a range of pages in a journal and they will be able to unambiguously determine the paper you are referring to. So completely removing a paper that was published in violation of process is a process violation itself, undermining the reliability of citations. At least they replaced it by a paper of the same length, hopefully preventing any following papers from moving around, but they really shouldn't reuse space like that. Especially considering it's an online journal where pages are essentially free.