recently added Google Scholar search links to all preprints’ pages

September 29, 2018

The links in question can be found in the bottom right of the preprints’ arXiv pages in the References & Citations area.  IMHO this is an important feature with a great potential. It is surprising that it is has not yet made it to the arXiv what’s new page  — I found this information in a tweet from an account apparently not related to arXiv:



More on Peer Review 2.0

February 17, 2012

What follows is an extended comment on the proposal of pre-print peer review by Sabine Hossenfelder.

She suggests, inter alia, that the authors pay a submission fee for each paper and the referees get awards for their reports. But is the fees-related part of the proposal necessary at all? Perhaps the universities could donate some funds (as they already do for the arXiv) to get the thing going, and major professional societies (APS, AMS, etc.) could chime in too (and the authors can donate on a  purely voluntary basis). To replace the awards for refereeing and the author fees one could use some kind of “points” (pretty much like the reputation points on the stackexchange sites): submission of the first paper is free, and the next ones are “paid” by the points obtained from refereeing. There could be some points gained for any report and extra points if the author(s) like the report (and express this by marking it as “favorite”).

UPDATE: another interesting and very detailed proposal on an alternative peer review model is Open Peer Review by a Selected-Papers Network by Chris Lee.

Math 2.0 and Peer Review 2.0, or A revolution in math and science publishing just around the corner?

February 12, 2012


It all began with the blog post Elsevier — my part in its downfall by the Fields medalist Timothy Gowers which has caused quite a stir and culminated in the creation of the web site with an online petition to boycott the Elsevier publishing house (see also this recent post by the Fields medalist Terence Tao).

What is more, the ongoing discussions on the future of math journals, see e.g. [1 2 3 4 5], have now got quite a momentum. The physicists have also launched a similar incentive SCOAP3, and there is a proposal for pre-print peer review by Sabine Hossenfelder.

It is apparent that we need to improve many aspects of the existing publishing system, and the forthcoming change will hopefully also affect the peer review (see e.g. here), and I would like to stress here one aspect of this change which remains somewhat implicit at the background of the ongoing discussions. The suggested versions of Peer Review 2.0 appear to agree in one thing: we need the reduction of subjective bias of the worst sort (culminating in the referee reports essentially saying nothing but “I think this paper is not good enough for this journal”), and I do hope that we, the science community, can bring at least this particular change forth.

Videos of the Fields medalists 2010 lectures at ICM in Hyderabad

August 27, 2010

Elon Lindenstrauss: watch online | download FLV file

Ngo Bao Chau: watch online | download FLV file

Stanislav Smirnov: watch online | download FLV file

Cedric Villani: watch online | download FLV file

For a discussion of their work see e.g. this post of Terence Tao and the official laudations.

In hindsight it’s rather funny to look at the rumours on the names of the awardees that have circulated on the net for some time.

Nature‘s Special on Scientometry

June 17, 2010

Just click here

Vladimir Arnold (1937-2010). R.I.P.

June 3, 2010

One of the world’s greatest and most influential mathematicians, Vladimir Arnold, passed away today in Paris, France. He made major contributions, inter alia, to the fields of dynamical systems (the famous KAM (Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser) theory) and topology (he is one of the founding fathers of symplectic topology). I hope that the prominent mathematicians like Terence Tao or Timothy Gowers will say more on their blogs about Arnold’s scientific legacy as they did for Israel Gelfand (update: Terence Tao has a recent post on the Euler–Arnold equation).

In addition to leaving a great legacy of mathematical theories, results and open problems, he authored a number of graduate and undergraduate textbooks (the best known perhaps being Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics) which were a major influence.

Walter Rudin (1921-2010). R.I.P.

May 21, 2010

Walter Rudin died on May 20, 2010 at the age of 89 after a long illness.

From Dick Askey:

Many of us learned mathematics from some of his books or papers. His being at the Univ. of Wisconsin was one of the main reasons I came here. His book on real and complex analysis was written for a course needed here. It provided a book which made it possible to teach enough real and complex variables so students could move to more specialized courses in analysis after a year of graduate study rather than the two years needed previously when there were year courses in real variables and complex variables. Informally among graduate students, his books were called the blue Rudin, the green Rudin, the yellow Rudin, etc. The fact that he wrote them seemed to many to be more important than using the title of the book.

To learn more about W.R., see also here.

Recently updated posts

March 7, 2010

As I often update old posts instead of writing new ones :), below is the (possibly incomplete) list of most recent updates:

StumbleUpon Stumble!

More on choosing problems to work on: advice from John H. Conway

March 6, 2010

1. Work at several problems at a time. If you only work on one problem and get stuck, you might get depressed. It is nice to have an easier back-up problem. The back-up problem will work as an anti-depressant and will allow you to go back to your difficult problem in a better mood. John told me that for him the best approach is to juggle six problems at a time.

2. Pick your problems with specific goals in mind. The problems you work on shouldn’t be picked at random. They should balance each other. Here is the list of projects he suggests you have:

  • Big problem. One problem should be both difficult and important. It should be your personal equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis. It is not wise to put all your time into such a problem. It most probably will make you depressed without making you successful. But it is nice to get back to your big problem from time to time. What if you do stumble on a productive idea? That may lead you to become famous without having sacrificed everything.
  • Workable problem. You should have one problem where it’s clear what to do. It’s best if this problem requires a lot of tedious work. As soon as you get stuck on other problems, you can go back to this problem and move forward on the next steps. This will revive your sense of accomplishment. It is great to have a problem around that can be advanced when you do not feel creative or when you are tired.
  • Book problem. Consider the book you are working on as one of your problems. If you’re always writing a book, you’ll write many of them. If you’re not in the mood to be writing prose, then work on math problems that will be in your book.
  • Fun problem. Life is hardly worth living if you are not having fun. You should always have at least one problem that you do for fun.

3. Enjoy your life. Important problems should never interfere with having fun.

This advice from J.H. Conway is excerpted from the blog post of Tanya Khovanova

StumbleUpon Stumble!

A (de?)motivating Feynman’s quote

January 8, 2010

If an ape can make a discovery, so can you.

Richard P. Feynman

as quoted in this book

What do you think about this quote?

StumbleUpon Stumble!

%d bloggers like this: