Timeline for On Mathematical Analysis of MathSciNet & MathOverflow
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 28, 2018 at 15:03 | comment | added | Matthias Wendt | It would be interesting to know if there is topical bias in MathOverflow posts and how that compares to the AMS publications. | |
| May 28, 2018 at 12:56 | comment | added | Alex Gavrilov | Taking a look at this interesting article, generalist journals are heavily "biased" towards pure mathematics at the expense of applied one. If you ask me, this is exactly how it should be. | |
| May 28, 2018 at 10:54 | comment | added | Peter Samuelson | It isn't clear to me what conclusions to draw from this analysis, since the author is measuring bias using "total number of papers published in a sub-field," which might not have a lot of meaning. E.g. some fields write much shorter papers, or some fields may have more low quality papers. Also, papers in some of the fields that the Proceedings are biased against (relativity theory, computer science) are often closer to a field other than pure mathematics. | |
| May 27, 2018 at 20:20 | history | answered | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |