Timeline for On what basis does a paper get accepted into a top journal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
44 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 12 at 8:04 | comment | added | Ho Man-Ho | @StanleyYaoXiao Here is a story I know that kind of support what you said, not perhaps not in the way you expect. There is a paper published by the Annals that I feel is not worthy of publication in the Annals. That paper was previously rejected by one of the other top five journals listed above. The author(s) of that paper has some friendship with an editor of the Annals (who is no longer an editor now). | |
| Aug 11 at 16:05 | comment | added | Stanley Yao Xiao | @HoMan-Ho one of the most shocking things I’ve learned in my career is that even very senior and highly distinguished researchers have to deal with special interests and agendas behind the top journals. It is not an experience unique to early career researchers. In fact I would go as far to say that unless you have a Fields Medal or something comparable, you will have to deal with this kind of BS if you are considering publishing in the elite journals. | |
| Aug 10 at 3:24 | comment | added | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | Note that the percentages in @FrancoisZiegler's comment already add up to 150%, so we see that many papers are listed in more than one area. For example, close to one third of number theory papers (6.0 percentage points) are also counted under algebraic geometry. Likewise, differential geometry shares 3.1 percentage points with global analysis and 2.4 with manifolds. So you cannot simply add the percentages. | |
| Aug 9 at 9:30 | comment | added | Francois Ziegler | @Carl-FredrikNybergBrodda I amended my previous comment since zbmath doesn’t systematically assign MSC before about 1970. You may adjust the link to find more recent proportions (which indeed climb for the top two fields; still they only account for about half). | |
| Aug 9 at 9:21 | comment | added | Francois Ziegler | @JoelDavidHamkins I think you are exaggerating with “basically algebraic geometry/number theory”. Since zbmath assigns MSC (c.1970) one finds Number theory 19.4%, Algebraic geometry 18.8%, Differential geometry 12.7%, Manifolds 12%, Ergodic theory 11.3%, Several complex variables 10%, PDE 8.8%, Lie groups 8.4%, Group theory 8.3%, Global analysis 8.2%, Complex analysis 5.2%, Functional analysis 4.7%, Algebraic topology 4.6%, Euclidean harmonic analysis 3.5%, Combinatorics 3.3%, Operator theory 3.2%, Probability 2.9%, Integration 2.8%, Logic 2.3%, etc. | |
| Aug 9 at 7:26 | comment | added | Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda | @FrancoisZiegler What is the proportion for more recent papers? Spot checking suggests that it is far higher than 10%. | |
| Aug 8 at 21:52 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | My argument is that we should stop describing them as generalist journals. Annals seems to be basically an algebraic geometry/number theory journal that sometimes publishes articles in other areas, but only rarely in logic and combinatorics (and presumably other neglected areas). | |
| Aug 8 at 21:49 | comment | added | Patrick Lutz | @JoelDavidHamkins Those numbers sound pretty believable to me. I would guess that JAMS is slightly more favorable to logic and Inventiones slightly less so (compared to Annals). I agree with the overall point that, compared to algebraic geometry or number theory, logic is underrepresented in top generalist journals compared to its representation among mathematicians overall. | |
| Aug 8 at 21:01 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | @PatrickLutz Thank you, I think that's right. So let's consider just since 2000, the last 25 years, by which time I think the use of MSC is nearly universal, especially in Annals papers. Since that time, there have been 14 logic papers in Annals, 139 algebraic geometry papers, and 219 number theory papers. | |
| Aug 8 at 20:42 | comment | added | Patrick Lutz | @JoelDavidHamkins However, I think your original comment does not give a correct impression of how many logic papers have been published in the Annals. I realize you acknowledged that your search might have missed some papers, but I would guess that the number you cited is off by at least a factor of 10 which seems pretty huge. I was mainly trying to correct this possible misimpression, not comment on the larger argument going on in this comments section. | |
| Aug 8 at 20:40 | comment | added | Patrick Lutz | @JoelDavidHamkins I agree that your searches may be more accurate for the past couple decades (though it troubles me that it's so different from zentralblatt's numbers) and that this is perhaps not a bad first approximation for comparing logic and number theory (though I would want to do a much more careful search before making any strong claims about it). I also don't think anyone can deny that in recent decades, far more number theory and algebraic geometry papers have been published in the Annals than logic papers. | |
| Aug 8 at 20:31 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | @PatrickLutz Yes, I had said in my first comment that my search only catches the papers using MSC code 03. But this was the same method used for the AG and NT numbers in the posted answers, so it seems a good way to compare. I expect that these searches miss many papers, but much less so with recent papers, which generally do use the codes, and for these years you have to admit the numbers are bad. | |
| Aug 8 at 20:23 | comment | added | Patrick Lutz | @Kimball I believe the discrepancy between zentralblatt and arxiv here may be partly because logic includes both mathematical logic as well as logic in philosophy and in computer science. Zentralblatt is probably catching at least some of these latter two categories while math.LO on arxiv does not (e.g. logic in computer science papers would be posted under cs.LO). | |
| Aug 8 at 20:21 | comment | added | Patrick Lutz | @Kimball Searching zentralblatt and arxiv both suggest that while algebraic geometry and number theory are somewhat bigger fields than logic, they are not vastly bigger. For example, according to zentralblatt, in 2015 there were about 3,605 logic papers published compared to about 4,824 in number theory. On arxiv, math.LO had 20 papers posted in the last week while math.NT had 70. | |
| Aug 8 at 20:13 | comment | added | Patrick Lutz | @JoelDavidHamkins Looking at other years in the 1960s suggests that 1966 was not particularly anomalous. So I would guess that at least something like 40 papers in logic were published in the Annals during the 1960s. To be fair, I do have the vague impression that the Annals published far more logic papers in the 1960s than they do today. | |
| Aug 8 at 20:09 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | @PatrickLutz: Indeed I think the MathSciNet database is only reliable, at least for these MSC searches, back to the 80s. | |
| Aug 8 at 20:07 | comment | added | Patrick Lutz | @JoelDavidHamkins For what it's worth I think you are dramatically undercounting the number of papers in logic which have been published in the Annals. This search on zentralblatt turns up 65 entries, but a spot check suggests that's still a vast underestimate. Looking directly at the volumes of Annals published in 1966 (the earliest year available on their website) gives 5 papers related to logic: two papers on isols, two on decidability of word problems and finally, one of the seminal papers of Ax and Kochen. | |
| Aug 7 at 17:39 | comment | added | Nate River | @user479223 No wonder all the grad students I know are depressed. | |
| Aug 7 at 16:03 | comment | added | user479223 | When I was a grad student I was lamenting about "the state of academia" to my adviser who responded by "I don't give a f*ck about academia, I care about people. It is my job to help people. When I accepted you as a student I took on an obligation to help and support you. I don't care about academia, I care about you. Tell me what you want and I will try my best to help you achieve it, and I am a smart guy." I don't think I complained about "the state of academia" in the same way again. | |
| Aug 7 at 15:44 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @NateRiver I doubt that a "flat" system will ever be possible. Taking a step back for a minute, it's somewhat amazing that anyone gets paid for doing non-applied research at all. From an economic point of view, funding for pure math is a scarce resource, so people are going to compete for it, and some people will be better competitors than others. The invisible hand of economics is very powerful, and attempts to impose "justice" by fiat will always be fighting an uphill battle IMO. | |
| Aug 7 at 15:11 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | @NateRiver I don't understand your last comment. At any rate, I've said my piece here and indeed this question is devolving into the kind of Internet forum debate that I think is very unhealthy for MathOverflow. | |
| Aug 7 at 14:55 | comment | added | Nate River | @SamHopkins You have more than enough power and say to fix this particular instance of unfairness here. | |
| Aug 7 at 13:17 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | @NateRiver The point of my post was to push back against the idea that math research at the highest level is dominated by cabals. And I say this as someone who has never had a paper in a top journal and likely never will. I think the current systems, while imperfect like anything in this world, do a good job highlighting the best math. Life is full of many unfairnesses, starting with the random circumstances of our births. With the huge caveat aside that these unfairnesses of course feed into things, I've found academia to be very meritocratic compared to almost any other facet of society. | |
| Aug 7 at 13:10 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | @TimothyChow I think there are reasons beyond the "prestige game" too. It's good to have a field be looked at and evaluated by outsiders. If mathematicians in your field only ever publish in field-specific journals, there is a risk the field becomes insular. | |
| Aug 7 at 11:41 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | @Kimball I game some numbers already, but you can do the search query at MathSciNet yourself with: j:("Ann. of Math.") AND pc:(xx) y:[0 2024] and replace xx with your desired MSC code. | |
| Aug 7 at 9:28 | comment | added | Ho Man-Ho | @NateRiver I wholeheartedly agree with you. The mafias do not only exist as editors of top journals, but also as professors in some top universities. My personal experience is if I am not in their circle, I am nothing to them. | |
| Aug 7 at 9:25 | comment | added | Ho Man-Ho | (continuing with my previous comments) I once met some students, who are professors at a university, of some of the editors of that very top journal some time ago. I can confirm that they have serious bias against any other fields (but not theirs) in geometry. | |
| Aug 7 at 9:22 | comment | added | Ho Man-Ho | Here is a similar story. I know of a friend that works on an area in geometry and he has a good publication record (several papers published in some very top journals in his field, but not the top five journals listed above). He once submitted a paper to a very top journal, but got rejected. The point is, he got some very bad comments. He then submitted his paper to another very top journal in his field, got accepted with some nice comments. The (editors of the) very top journal rejected his paper is known to have a very serious bias against other fields in geometry. | |
| Aug 7 at 5:33 | comment | added | Nate River | @user479223 Let’s be honest. That is not the only reason why AG and NT are heavily over represented in the top journals. There are “cliques” that naturally form due to probablistic processes. And then there are “mafias” that form and are maintained unnaturally. And every researcher knows this. Both scenarios are counterproductive to ensuring that good math from all fields gets published. | |
| Aug 7 at 4:53 | comment | added | Nate River | @TimothyChow Indeed. Long term we should work on moving to a more “flat” system. The number of implicit “tiers” within math journals is ridiculous. Journal of Applied Probability < Electronic Journal of Probability < Annals of Probability < Annals of Mathematics. Depending on how important your probability result is, it goes into one of these. How the hell am I supposed to decide? What even is an EJP tier, but not AoP tier result? And it is doubly hard because no one seems to want to give guidance publically. The art is too “dirty” for most people to even speak it seems. | |
| Aug 7 at 4:11 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @JoelDavidHamkins A possible argument for encouraging "top" logicians to publish in the allegedly "top" journals is this: Doing so will likely increase the prestige of logic as a field, and improve the incentives for junior mathematicians to work in logic. The whole "prestige game" may be absurd and distasteful, but it remains a fact of life that junior mathematicians have to contend with. So senior logicians who work to increase the prestige of their subject are performing a service to junior logicians. | |
| Aug 7 at 3:16 | comment | added | Kimball | the Annals has published a grand total of 24 papers in logic... 351 papers with pc:15 (algebraic geometry), and 311 papers with pc:11 (number theory) - How do those numbers compare with the total number of papers per field? | |
| Aug 7 at 2:44 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Yes, that in fact is the advice I give. We talk mainly about the logic journals and which ones might be suitable for their work; the other journals just don't matter that much. Personally, though I have over 100 published articles, I haven't ever submitted a paper to Annals or any of the other journals being mentioned here as top 5 or whatever. It just hasn't seemed important. | |
| Aug 7 at 2:35 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | No, I'm not saying that at all. My focus is on the question that Nate River posed, what advice would you give to a young mathematician looking to get their papers in the top journals. Although you haven't said exactly this, I take it your advice might be: if you're working in logic, ignore the so-called "top journals" like the Annals. But maybe a different response would be: try to get your very best work in these general journals which have a lot of prestige, it is possible. | |
| Aug 7 at 2:30 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Are you seriously suggesting that the logic numbers in the Annals are accurately reflecting the contribution of logic to mathematics? I would find that absurd. | |
| Aug 7 at 2:27 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | According to MathSciNet, Saharon Shelah alone has published 5 papers in the Annals. I wouldn't say that's irrelevant. | |
| Aug 7 at 2:26 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | I'm not complaining about bias. Rather, my complaint is that the Annals just isn't important for all subjects. In logic, it is nearly irrelevant. (Perhaps it is because of historical lack of knowledge of logic by other mathematicians and journals that caused logic to develop its own journals and societies, and so there basically isn't a culture of publishing in the supposedly generalist journals.) There are over 80,000 articles on MathSciNet with subject code 03, but only 24 of them are in the Annals. To me, that failure reflects more on the Annals than it does on logic as a subject. | |
| Aug 7 at 2:06 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | @JoelDavidHamkins We're getting into exactly the kind of opinion-based argumentation which makes this question a bad fit for MO, but: how would you demonstrate that research in logic is having a profound impact on contemporary mathematics, especially compared to other areas? One way of course would be to show off the logic papers published in the top journals, but the allegation I guess is that the top journals are biased against logic. We could look at the most prestigious prizes. Paul Cohen won the Fields Medal in 1966, but no logician has won it since then, and none ever won the Abel Prize. | |
| Aug 7 at 0:51 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Meanwhile, 351 papers with pc:15 (algebraic geometry), and 311 papers with pc:11 (number theory). | |
| Aug 7 at 0:45 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | For comparison, according to the search j:("Ann. of Math.") AND pc:(03) y:[0 2024] the Annals has published a grand total of 24 papers in logic, altogether since its inception (probably this misses papers that don't use the MSC). Logic is a huge field with more than a dozen of its own specialist journals, its own professional societies, and deep connections with essentially all parts of mathematics, and also deep connections with neighboring areas such as theoretical computer science. | |
| Aug 6 at 19:54 | vote | accept | Nate River | ||
| Aug 6 at 19:55 | |||||
| Aug 6 at 19:27 | comment | added | user479223 | Thanks for this post. It is indeed not true that Annals ignores areas of math, and most areas are at least somewhat represented. Additionally, things like algebraic geometry touch on more areas so hence are more represented, even if only incidentally. I don't think there is some conspiracy and I am glad you say this. | |
| S Aug 6 at 19:13 | history | answered | Sam Hopkins | CC BY-SA 4.0 | |
| S Aug 6 at 19:13 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Sam Hopkins |