Timeline for Publication rates in Mathematics
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
48 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 26, 2019 at 0:20 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 26, 2019 at 16:37 | |||||
| Dec 4, 2017 at 8:21 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 5, 2017 at 21:59 | |||||
| Oct 22, 2017 at 20:38 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 23, 2017 at 6:45 | |||||
| Oct 19, 2016 at 9:19 | comment | added | Takahiro Waki | But that he is very famous mathematician(most famous mathematician especially in Japan?) shows his activity is very large and plentiful. He would have many amateur-level research papers. | |
| Oct 19, 2016 at 9:04 | comment | added | Takahiro Waki | It seemed what Jin accomplished was more like “Another month, another paper.” matem.unam.mx/urrutia/online_papers/Akiyama-Article.pdf | |
| Oct 19, 2016 at 5:22 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | @Takahiro, MathSciNet shows 94 papers over the course of 40 years. | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 18:33 | answer | added | Joe Silverman | timeline score: 6 | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 17:53 | answer | added | Federico Poloni | timeline score: 18 | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 16:05 | history | edited | Ali Taghavi |
I add two tags.
|
|
| Nov 10, 2015 at 2:43 | vote | accept | Gerry Myerson | ||
| Oct 29, 2015 at 15:26 | answer | added | Gejza Jenča | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 29, 2015 at 8:39 | comment | added | user25199 | @quid This is similar to the UK's REF, which asks for the best 4 papers in roughly 7 years. While there are obvious difficulties in defining quality, this seems to get a good balance between a minimum output on one hand, and an incentive to publish quality rather than quantity on the other. | |
| Oct 28, 2015 at 1:03 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 28, 2015 at 0:43 | answer | added | Jon Bannon | timeline score: 81 | |
| Oct 28, 2015 at 0:26 | history | reopened |
Igor Belegradek Joonas Ilmavirta Gerry Myerson Yemon Choi Timothy Chow |
||
| Oct 27, 2015 at 23:26 | comment | added | user9072 | It is not really what you ask for but maybe close enough: the AERES (a French evaluation agency) considers somebody as "scientifically active" with 2+ papers (or equivalent) over 4 years. Source It is not really clear to me what this means but I am given to understand it is a minimal requirement not the standard what is considered as good. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 23:12 | comment | added | Igor Belegradek | See page 70 (p.73 of the pdf) in dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/8160722 | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 22:47 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | As far as differences between various subjects within mathematics, looking at whole departments should smooth out some of those differences. In any event, I expect the head of our department will have some leeway to account for differences within mathematics, once a reasonable figure for "mathematics-on-average" is available. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 22:44 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | @Heinrich, that's exactly the kind of question I am not asking here, and not interested in asking here. We can discuss it at the water cooler, but not here. Can we please stick to the narrow, focussed topic of my question: is there any publically available, reliable data on publication rates in mathematics? | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 22:40 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | @Per, page count matters to you, and page count matters to me, but it doesn't matter to the committee that has been tasked with coming up with a fixed number of points to assign to each publication. The head of our department will have the leeway to say, sure, Prof X only published one paper, but it was 200 pages in the Annals, so we are happy with her research output. But in the meantime the committee needs a number, and I want to help to ensure that the number assigned for mathematics aligns with what mathematicians actually do. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 22:23 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | The comments are taking us way off-topic. My question is emphatically not about ranking universities or people. It is not about the relative merits of different ways to measure workload. It is not about comparing math to other disciplines, but only about the existence of statistics related to math. It would be very useful (to me) to have numbers for math, regardless of what the numbers might be for other disciplines – if the other disciplines want numbers, let them go find them, themselves. I just want to know whether there is published data on publication rates in mathemaics. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 20:26 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Oct 27, 2015 at 20:16 | comment | added | Igor Belegradek | I voted to reopen. The issue of evaluatiing research output that is inevitably faced by anyone dealing with hiring and promotion. Sadly, most public discussions of this matter are focused on what not to do; the comments here is a perfect example. In practice the decisons involve a mix of data (paper count, citations, funding amounts etc) and the "popularity contest", i.e., perceived significance of the research. There seem to be no agreement on the best practices even for comparing research in different subfields of mathematics. Hence such discussions should not be suppressed. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 17:48 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Oct 28, 2015 at 0:29 | |||||
| Oct 27, 2015 at 17:30 | history | closed |
Anton Petrunin Stefan Kohl♦ Chris Godsil paul garrett Franz Lemmermeyer |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 17:09 | comment | added | Per Alexandersson | There is a huge difference between papers in say, combinatorics and papers in other areas. Combinatorics papers can be say 10-15 pages, other areas easily 30+. Page count matters. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 17:02 | answer | added | Dan Romik | timeline score: 21 | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 15:04 | comment | added | SlavaM | If you choose randomly two mathematicians with say, more than twelve papers, do you think that the probability that the one with more publications be a better mathematician than the other is greater than 1/2? (with your 'feeling' of the meaning of better) | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 13:45 | comment | added | Lubin | @Carl, when speaking to a Dean on these matters, one should be not polite, but firm and insistent. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 13:28 | comment | added | user9072 | The above being said (and in view of other comments) I want to stress I have nothing against the question itself, however I do think it will be difficult to get anything really useful as this is quite different over subjects (in mathematics) and academic cultures. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 13:24 | comment | added | user9072 | I do not vote to close this (at least not yet) but I think the question would be a lot better asked on Academia and generalized a bit. The motivation of the question seems to be (at least in part) to compare math to other disciplines. I thus think a broader picture could be more helpful. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 12:30 | comment | added | user25199 | Measuring workload by number of papers will lead to the obvious result that people will publish as many small papers in low quality journals as possible. If possible, you should politely tell your dean that no reputable math department (actually no university) does this if it wants to remain so. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 11:20 | comment | added | user41593 | A chemist friend of mine once told me that the standard in computational chemistry is: you set up a simulation, you get the computers cranking, and no matter what the output means you publish the numbers-there is your paper! Not to mention the shenanigans involved in cross-citing, which (thank God) is a much less pervasive practice in maths. The whole business of publication is more severely flawed in other disciplines, but for some reason that's the standard. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 10:24 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl♦ | I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not constructive. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 10:20 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 27, 2015 at 12:03 | |||||
| Oct 27, 2015 at 10:00 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl♦ | What do you want to do with such bibliometrics? -- As soon as you make anything depend on it, people will start "optimising" their activities accordingly to get good evaluations, and I am not convinced that this is helpful for anything or anybody, perhaps except for the inventors of the evaluation scheme ... . | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 9:50 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | +1 @FranzLemmermeyer I believe taking into account quality (as opposed to quantity) is next to impossible | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 9:22 | comment | added | Franz Lemmermeyer | This whole business of ranking universities and people by assigning some number to them makes me sick. Honestly. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 9:13 | comment | added | joro | Maybe arxiv.org may help, especially if someone there helps you. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 8:42 | comment | added | José Figueroa-O'Farrill | Less facetiously, REF only lists 4 publications per author, so it is not a good measure for what the OP is asking. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 8:41 | comment | added | José Figueroa-O'Farrill | @ZhenLin: almost by definition, REF results are not useful :) | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 8:17 | comment | added | Zhen Lin | Perhaps the REF results are useful. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 7:43 | comment | added | Anthony Quas | So I looked for an example at papers published in the last 5 years by authors from the University of Michigan. There were a total of 982, which makes this a bit of a pain. These can be exported into a text file and then sorted with a bit of effort... | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 7:39 | comment | added | Anthony Quas | @BjørnKjos-Hanssen: That's quite funny! | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 7:39 | comment | added | Anthony Quas | It would not be hard using MathSciNet to get a list of all papers published by authors at the University of X in the last 5 years from the Mathematics Dept. I guess you would need to do some work pruning out grad students etc. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 7:38 | comment | added | Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen | @AnthonyQuas For fun I did an experiment just now: pick a random department out of the 104 Group I&II departments at ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/groups_des Then pick a random tenured/track faculty member in that department. Then check MathSciNet. Result (sample size n=2): An average of 37 papers total, but both had zero (0) papers in the last 5 years. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 7:31 | comment | added | Amir Asghari | There is a paper entitled "Top mathematicians of the world!" in EMS Newsletter (Dec 2014, pp. 32-34): ems-ph.org/journals/newsletter/pdf/2014-12-94.pdf. It is not exactly what you are looking for, but it discusses the problem of evaluating researchers and research in mathematics. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 5:33 | history | asked | Gerry Myerson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |