Timeline for Information about publishing and citations
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6, 2011 at 17:19 | comment | added | Arend Bayer | @Felipe: I constantly see papers (in pure mathematics) that do not cite other papers where similar results are proved. | |
| Apr 3, 2011 at 16:35 | comment | added | Henry Cohn | @Felipe: I don't mean to suggest either approach is worse, but just to point out that they differ. | |
| Apr 2, 2011 at 20:17 | comment | added | Felipe Voloch | @Bill,Igor. If I systematically trace original sources of results I use (I do number theory/algebraic geometry, btw) I will end up with a bunch of references written in languages most of my readers can't read, whose authors have been dead for decades. | |
| Apr 2, 2011 at 13:59 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | First, I very much agree with @Bill. It gets worse though -- many people [myself, sadly, among them, but this is in the culture], tend not to read, but either have things explained to them orally, or just figure them out, which leads to many "folklore theorems", which are not actually folklore. Many basic results are rediscovered every 10 years or so, because people can't be bothered to do a literature search. As for @Felipe's last sentence, I don't do this, but maybe we all should?! Don't you want your friends to be happy? Don't you think getting tenure will contribute to their happiness? | |
| Apr 2, 2011 at 10:29 | comment | added | Bill Johnson | Many pure mathematicians cite secondary references (books or later papers that give minor extensions of a result) and not mention the original source. I have not witnessed that in the theoretical CS literature I read. | |
| Apr 2, 2011 at 4:43 | comment | added | Felipe Voloch | @Henry: And why is this worse? | |
| Apr 2, 2011 at 0:56 | comment | added | Henry Cohn | I'm not sure what Igor meant, but I've seen some differences in citation patterns between pure math and theoretical CS (and I don't think I'm imagining them). My impression is that CS papers are more likely to have lengthy discussions of related work, in which they demonstrate the importance of the topic by citing many previous papers on related problems, and even papers that are only marginally related get mentioned for completeness or in the process of explaining how they differ. Pure mathematicians are more likely to cite only papers that are directly relevant or historically important. | |
| Apr 2, 2011 at 0:01 | comment | added | Felipe Voloch | "Pure mathematicians are a lot worse about citing each other than applied mathematicians" Would you mind explaining that a little better? I try to cite all papers I think is relevant in my papers and, by and large, I think my colleagues are citing relevant stuff. I rarely see a paper where I think that the authors have failed to cite relevant literature. Should we be citing our friends just for the sake of raising their citation index? | |
| Apr 1, 2011 at 13:42 | history | answered | Igor Rivin | CC BY-SA 2.5 |