Timeline for Two questions about combinatorics journals
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8 at 21:57 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Ben Webster♦ | ||
| Jul 27, 2020 at 18:31 | comment | added | Zach Teitler | @user9072 I wonder if that’s not an argument supporting the 3 year window? Or does it instead suggest that the 1, 3, and 5 year windows are all equally questionable? | |
| Jul 27, 2020 at 13:54 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 6 | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Mar 5, 2015 at 17:36 | answer | added | Babak Samadi | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 6, 2013 at 12:09 | comment | added | user9072 | @gordon-royle: I don't want to defend bib-metrics; but similar stats exist with 1 year and 5 years instead of 3. Yet, I once roughly compared lists based on 1 and 5 years and (to my surprise) it changed not much (in particular if one stays in some field). Thus, IMO, the argument that 3 years are too short, is not strong, as in my perception 1 and 5 years give almost the same and I doubt expanding beyond will change much. (Except perhaps in some cases where some paper got standard reference with many cit. over long time, but this seems more like bias than something that should be tracked.) | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 5:36 | comment | added | Gordon Royle | One more point - the ranking in the first link apparently uses "number of citations in the given year to papers published in the journal in the previous three years". By the time a paper is written, refereed, waits out the backlog, and finally appears, even citations to very recent work will be pushing the time-limit. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 0:47 | comment | added | Yuichiro Fujiwara | @darij As Dima points out, that ranking contains questionable entries. And it misses obviously combinatorics journals that are by no means obscure (e.g., J. Graph Theory). I'm having very hard time believing journals were carefully categorized by active researchers working in each respective field. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 23:31 | comment | added | darij grinberg | Why is "Inverse Problems and Imaging" in that ranking (which pretends to be a ranking of combinatorics journals)? | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 20:40 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | I have voted to close because I regard Question 1 as subjective and argumentative. Question 2 is perhaps acceptable on MO but seems borderline. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 18:34 | answer | added | Yuichiro Fujiwara | timeline score: 13 | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 13:57 | comment | added | user9072 | The following blog post by Gowers and its comments discuss (among other things) combinatorics journals in some detail gowers.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/… | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 13:53 | comment | added | user9072 | For the second question: to confirma what I thought, I just looked through a couple, six or so, issues on MathSciNet almost everything in Ser B has primary classication under 05C (so Graph theory) two papers where in 05B35 (Matoid theory) and one had some 'applied' classificaction in operations research or so but likely is also graph theory. By contrast, in series A while one can also find some papers with a 05C classification they are few. In brief, I'd say Ser A is a general combinatorics journal (with some graph theory) while ser B is basically a graph theory journal. | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 13:47 | answer | added | Greg Warrington | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 13:17 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | 1. The list contains a number of highly questionable entries... | |
| Apr 4, 2013 at 12:53 | history | asked | Adam Sheffer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |