Timeline for Examples of ZBMath reviews that motivated you to read the paper
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2023 at 5:48 | comment | added | Praphulla Koushik | @IgorBelegradek I understand the point :) smart idea.. | |
| Dec 5, 2023 at 23:27 | comment | added | Igor Belegradek | My favorite reviews are those that make me feel I don't have to read the paper. An ideal review should describe key results, put them in proper context, and sketch the proofs. Reading the actual paper is for the few experts who care. | |
| Dec 5, 2023 at 14:10 | comment | added | Dave Benson | For some beautiful examples of the opposite - scathing reviews of books, on MR - you might enjoy reading some of Rod Gow's reviews of the books of Karpilovsky. They're real gems. | |
| Dec 5, 2023 at 13:48 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 13 | |
| Dec 5, 2023 at 13:10 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @PraphullaKoushik MathSciNet and zbMATH "reviews" are not like book reviews that you might read in a newspaper or a magazine, which readers typically read in order to learn the opinion of the reviewer. A zbMATH review is certainly not an endorsement either. Now, if you genuinely love a paper, then you should feel free to write an enthusiastic review. But the primary purpose of the review is to provide factual information about the paper. Think of it as an extended abstract which gives additional context, details, and search terms that the paper's own abstract lacked space to include. | |
| Dec 5, 2023 at 10:03 | comment | added | Willie Wong | I've been motivated to read/skim quite a few of the more humorous/scathing entries from www2.math.ou.edu/~kmartin/mr.html ... but that's probably not what you are getting at. | |
| Dec 5, 2023 at 8:39 | history | edited | Praphulla Koushik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Dec 4, 2023 at 20:33 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Asaf Karagila♦ | ||
| Dec 4, 2023 at 16:26 | history | edited | Wojowu |
tags
|
|
| Dec 4, 2023 at 16:23 | comment | added | Praphulla Koushik | @IosifPinelis I will surely keep in mind your comment "Even the authors would not be helped if readers find less in the paper than its review seemed to promise.".. This is useful :) | |
| Dec 4, 2023 at 16:21 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | I agree with Sam Hopkins. Reviews are written for their readers, to give the readers accurate information about the papers, and not to promote authors. Even the authors would not be helped if readers find less in their papers than the reviews seemed to promise. | |
| Dec 4, 2023 at 16:14 | comment | added | Praphulla Koushik | @SamHopkins I respect your point of view.. For reasons I can't explain quickly, I prefer to give only positive feedback in official public domain.. I was thinking anything I write should be helping the authors to get one more reader :) Is that not the usual stand of reviewers? I am not saying if it is good or not.. Just wanted to know what Is the usual stand.. | |
| Dec 4, 2023 at 15:53 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | I’m not sure I agree with the premise. I think ZBMath or MathSciNet reviews should aim to give a factual and neutral account of the results of the paper in question. Perhaps together with some background/context that might be missing from something as short as an abstract. | |
| Dec 4, 2023 at 15:43 | history | asked | Praphulla Koushik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |