Matematiˇ
cki ˇ
casopisi u svetu i kod nas:
sadaˇ
snjost i budu´
cnost
— Prezentacija (slajdovi)—
http://pefmath.etf.rs
Milan Merkle
[email protected]
Materijal je namenjen iskljuˇcivo za liˇcnu upotrebu i moˇze se bez registracije skinuti iz
Srbije na adresi http://pefmath.etf.rs/casopisi.html . Saˇcinjen je u cilju prezentacije
na Matematiˇckom Institutu u Beogradu i na Univerzitetu u Niˇsu u okviru diskusije
o poloˇzaju i vrednovanju ˇcasopisa i vrednovanju istraˇzivaˇckog rada. Iako je ve´cina
izloˇzenog materijala slobodno dostupna na Internetu, jedan deo podataka je skinut
sa sistema koji su otvoreni samo pretplatnicima. Zbog mogu´cih pravnih posledica,
molim svakog ko skine fajl sa prezentacijom da ga dalje ne distribuira, kao i da ga ne
prezentira ni u celini ni u delovima u okviru neke druge javne prezentacije ili diskusije.
Naravno, sadrˇzaj teksta i ostalih delova prezentacije moˇze se prepriˇcati ili o njemu
diskutovati bez ikakvih ograniˇcenja.
PREDGOVOR
Na stranicama koje slede nalazi se integralna prezentacija slajdova sa dva predavanja koja sam odrˇzao 18.
januara i 1. februara 2013. godine na seminaru Matematiˇckog Instituta SANU. Predavanje od 1. februara
je snimljeno i video zapis se moˇze na´ci na sajtu Matematiˇckog instituta. U stvari, trebalo je to da bude
jedno predavanje, ali zbog obimnog materijala i interesovanja prisutnih na prvom predavanju, odluˇceno je
da se zakaˇze i drugo, koje je bilo dostupno na Internetu preko video linka. Predavanje na istu temu odrˇzao
sam i na Univerzitetu u Niˇsu, 7. februara 2013. godine, gde sam koristio jedan deo slajdova koji su ovde
prikazani, za ˇsiru publiku u kojoj su bili istraˇzivaˇci iz raznih oblasti.
Naslov predavanja je bio ”Matematiˇcki ˇcasopisi u svetu i kod nas: sadaˇsnjost i budu´cnost”. S obzirom da
je tema rangiranja ˇcasopisa kod nas neraskidivo vezana za temu vrednovanja istraˇzivaˇca, na kraju je druga
pomenuta tema prevagnula u mom izlaganju, a naroˇcito u diskusijama. Spregu vrednovanja ˇcasopisa prema
impakt faktoru sa kvantitativnim vrednovanjem istraˇzivaˇca koji su objavili rad u tom ˇcasopisu nazvao sam
ifovanje1 – skra´ceno od ”impaktfaktorovanje”.
Na stranicama koje slede nalaze se brojni argumenti protiv ifovanja, kao i mnogobrojna miˇsljenja
matematiˇcara ˇsirom sveta, ”malih” ili ”velikih”, koji su protiv ifovanja. Argumenti za ifovanje svode se
na to da je to kriterijum koji iskljuˇcuje subjektivnost. To je bio odliˇcan argument kada smo poˇceli da
ga primenjujemo devedesetih godina, ali su njegovom primenom evoluirale do tada minorne ili nepoznate
pojave udruˇzivanja autora, lovaca na impakt faktore, nelogiˇcnih citiranja i samocitiranja, ogromnog porasta
godiˇsnjeg broja radova po autoru i ˇcasopisa grabljivica. Joˇs jedan argument u korist ifovanju koji se ˇcuo
u diskusijama nakon predavanja je da Ministarstvo nema dovoljno finansijskih mogu´cnosti da bi moglo da
sprovede kvalitativno (umesto sadaˇsnjeg kvantitativnog) vrednovanja. Naime, za kvalitativno vrednovanje
bilo bi potrebno angaˇzovati ocenjivaˇce projekata i istraˇzivaˇca, koje bi trebalo platiti.
Motivacija za ovu prezentaciju bila su kretanja u svetskoj matematiˇckoj i uopˇste nauˇcnoj javnosti, o
kojima mi se ˇcinilo da se malo ili nimalo zna kod nas. Ta kretanja nisu poˇcela odskora, a sude´ci po razvoju
dogad¯aja u poslednje tri godine, izgleda da su blizu verovatnom raspletu koji bi mogao da dovede do
potpune promene naˇcina na koji matematiˇcari publikuju svoje rezultate. S druge strane, rezultati razliˇcitih
bibliografskih istraˇzivanja govore o tome da se srpska matematiˇcka publikacija istiˇce u regionu kao vode´ca,
ne samo u matematici nego uopˇste u nauci. Upravo zbog toga ne bi trebalo da dozvolimo da nam dogad¯aji
koje drugi kreiraju budu nepoznati i da budemo poslednji koji ´ce usvojiti promene i prilagoditi im se. U
hronoloˇskom redu, govorimo o slede´cim dogad¯ajima i kretanjima:
2005 Judˇzin Garfild, tvorac impakt faktora i SCI liste piˇse da je impakt faktor bio smiˇsljen za rangiranje
ˇcasopisa, a da je njegova upotreba za rangiranje pojedinaca krajnje kontraverzna [I-17]2
2009 Daglas Arnold, tadaˇsnji predsednik SIAM-a, objavljuje ˇclanak u Siam News o zloupotrebama i malverzacijama od strane autora, glavih urednika i izdavaˇca matematiˇckih ˇcasopisa. [I-21]
1
2
Engl. Ifomania, videti [I-47].
I-17 znaˇci prvi deo prezentacije, strana 17; ostale oznake analogno.
2010 (prole´ce) Evropsko matematiˇcko druˇstvo (EMS) formira etiˇcki komitet koji ima za cilj da napravi neku
vrstu etiˇckog kodeksa koji bi bio preporuˇcen svim uˇcesnicima u procesu publikovanja matematiˇckih
radova.
2010 (Avgust) Svetsko matematiˇcko druˇstvo (IMU) objavljuje dokument pod nazivom ”Best Current Practices for Journals” u kome se preporuˇcuje etiˇcko ponaˇsanje autora, recenzenata, urednika i izdavaˇca.
Ovaj dokument je nastao kao reakcija na prime´cene zloupotrebe i malverzacije. http://pefmath.etf.rs
ili izvorni sajt www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/CEIC/bestpractice/bpfinal.pdf.
2010 Svetsko matematiˇcko druˇstvo (IMU) formira radnu grupu koja ima za cilj da rangira matematiˇcke
ˇcasopise na drugaˇcijoj osnovi od SCI/SCIE liste [I-37]
2011 (Novembar) IMU otvara blog o ˇcasopisima. U narednih godinu dana matematiˇcari ˇsirom sveta
izraˇzavaju u velikoj ve´cini svoj protest protiv bilo kakvog rangiranja. Veliki broj njih smatra da
bi bilo kakvo rangiranje dovelo do sliˇcnih ili istih zloupotreba i malverzacija kao i sa SCI listom. [I-37]
2012 Evropsko Matematiˇcko druˇstvo (EMS) usvaja dokument pod nazivom Code of Practice u kome se
reguliˇse ponaˇsanje svih uˇcesnika u procesu publikovanja matematiˇckih publikacija. Izmed¯u ostalog,
ifovanje se osud¯uje kao pogubno za nauku (grave danger). [II-28]
2012 (21. Januar) Tim Gowers, dobitnik Fields-ove medalje (1998) na svom blogu objavljuje protest protiv
Elsevier-a:
http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/elsevier-my-part-in-its-downfall/3
Za dodatne informacije videti i
http://singularityhub.com/2012/03/18/8200-strong-researchers-band-together-to-force
-science-journals-to-open-access/
2012 (Februar) Pokrenut je sajt ( thecostofknowledge.com) na kome je 34 vode´cih svetskih matematiˇcara
potpisalo poziv na bojkot Elesevier-a. Do sada se pridruˇzilo preko 13 000 nauˇcnika iz svih oblasti.
[II-18]
2012 (Oktobar) Rukovod¯ena tekstovima sa IMU bloga, IMU raspuˇsta radnu grupu i odustaje od bilo kakve
klasifikacije ˇcasopisa. [I-48]
2013 (17. januar) U ˇcasopisu Nature najavljeno je da se po inicijativi Tim-a Gowers-a oˇcekuje poˇcetak rada
nekoliko ”open access” matematiˇckih ˇcasopisa koji ´ce biti povezani sa sistemom ArXiv-a
( http://arxiv.org/, Cornell University) koji bi trebalo da budu alternativa komercijalnim izdavaˇcima. [II-13]
3
Linkovi koji se ovde citiraju nisu pomenuti u prezentaciji. Za Web informacije o ostalim dogad¯ajima i pokretima videti
prezentaciju.
Na kraju, duˇzan sam da ˇcitaocima ovog teksta (prvenstveno onima koji nisu sluˇsali ili gledali predavanja)
obrazloˇzim zaˇsto ovo piˇsem i priˇcam, budu´ci da sam glavni urednik ˇcasopisa koji se prema Ministarstvu/Kobsonu
klasifikuje kao Vrhunski med¯unarodni ˇcasopis (M21). Evo nekoliko razloga
• Ifovanje moˇze da podigne ˇcasopis nakratko, ali ga uniˇstava na duˇze staze, jer privlaˇci lovce na impakt
faktor koji pokuˇsavaju da plasiraju svoje radove u neadekvatne ˇcasopise.
• Ifovanje moˇze da koristi samo komercijalnim izdavaˇcima koji unovˇcavaju svaki promil pove´canja sopstvenog IF-a tako ˇsto podiˇzu cenu ˇcasopisu.
• Ifovanje stvara ogroman pritisak na urednike ˇcasopisa i veliki deo posla se odnosi na pregled radova koji
nemaju ˇsansu da budu objavljeni. Procenat odbijenih radova je nenormalno visok, a vreme ˇcekanja
do odluke se enormno pove´cava.
• Ifovanje podstiˇce ne-etiˇcko ponaˇsanje svih strana, ukljuˇcuju´ci autore, urednike i recenzente. Ifovanje
privlaˇci klike autora koji se med¯usobno citiraju, veze izmed¯u koautora iz ne-nauˇcnih motiva i na razne
druge naˇcine motiviˇse nedoliˇcno ponaˇsanje svih uˇcesnika u procesu.
• Bez ifovanja bismo radili onako kako treba a ne onako kako se mora.
• Promene su neminovne i bolje im se prilagoditi na vreme nego dozvoliti da nas pregaze dok beˇzimo
od njih.
Originalni tekst je neznatno izmenjen da bi se mogao pratiti bez propratnih usmenih komentara. Za
pripremu predavanja koristio sam (osim na dva mesta) iskljuˇcivo izvore sa Interneta. Svi izvori su navedeni
u tekstu prezentacije. Osim MathSciNet/Math Reviews koji je dostupan samo autorizovanim korisnicima
(moˇze se koristiti u Matematiˇckom institutu) i Kobsona i sa njim povezanim servisima koji mogu da se vide
samo iz akademske mreˇze ili sa liˇcnom lozinkom ”od ku´ce”, svi ostali izvori su otvoreni za pristup.
U predavanjima sam dao ve´ci broj predloga koji moˇzda u ovom trenutku izgledaju radikalno, ali verujem
da bi bar neki od njih mogli biti usvojeni. Neki od tih predloga poklapaju se ili su veoma sliˇcni predlozima
od strane akademika prof. Cvetkovi´ca u njegovoj diskusiji na kraju prvog dela predavanja. Jedan koristan
predlog sam izostavio, pa ´cu ga navesti na ovom mestu. U ovom trenutku, ve´cina matematiˇcara u Srbiji
nema pristup MathSciNet/MathReviews-u. Iz razloga koji su mi nepoznati, servis za medicinare MedLine
je dostupan preko KObson-a, dok MathSciNet nije. Napravljen od matematiˇcara – za matematiˇcare, ovo je
nezamislivo dobra podrˇska za pisanje i nalaˇzenje radova i istraˇzivanja u matematici. Pozivam nadleˇzne da
nam daju MathSciNet ako je to ikako mogu´ce!
Jedna interesantna stvar se desila sa ovim prezentacijama: iako nisam to ”ˇstimovao”, oba dela prezentacije
imaju po 50 stranica, ˇsto zajedno ˇcini okruglo 100. Lik detektiva Monka iz istoimene serije bi bio veoma
sre´can zbog toga, a i meni izgleda da je to dobar znak da smo neˇsto ipak pokrenuli iz mrtve taˇcke. Vreme
´ce pokazati.
U Beogradu, 8. februara 2013
Milan Merkle, [email protected]
Matematiˇ
cki ˇ
casopisi u svetu i kod nas:
sadaˇ
snjost i budu´
cnost
— Prvi deo —
Milan Merkle
• Srbija - zemlja nauke
• Sveti impakt faktor
• Manipulacije i zloupotrebe
• Akcija i reakcija
ˇki institut SANU, 18. januar
Matematic
2013.
0/49
SRBIJA-ZEMLJA NAUKE
SA AERODROMA (1)
1/49
SA AERODROMA (2)
2/49
KOLIKO IZDVAJA SRBIJA ZA NAUKU
A KOLIKO NEKE DRUGE ZEMLJE
U PROCENTIMA
BRUTO NACIONALNOG DOHOTKA
PO STANOVNIKU
3/49
4/49
РАЗВОЈ СРПСКЕ НАУКE
У СВЕТЛУ ЕВРОПСКИХ
ИНТЕГРАЦИЈА
Ђуро Кутлача, Душица Семенченко,
Виктор Недовић и Јелена Колић
Београд, 2011.
за НИИР рада као % БДП у 2005. гоао и на слици 8.
ку у еврима, 2005. год. и трошкови за
5/49
SVETI IMPAKT FAKTOR
• Liste i indeksi
• Impakt faktor za ˇ
casopise
• JCR liste za matematiku
• AMS Reference list
• Vrednovanje istraˇ
zivaˇ
ca prema impakt faktoru ˇ
casopisa
• H-faktor i primeri
• Koliko radova godiˇ
snje?
6/49
LISTE I INDEKSI
• Eugene Garfield and Citation index (Science 15 July 1955: Vol. 122 no. 3159 pp.
108-111 DOI: 10.1126/science.122.3159.108 )
• Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) was founded by Eugene Garfield in 1960.
ISI was producing scientific titles and abstracts in print format and by the year 1988 it was losing
about $4 million a year. JPT invested tens of millions and converted the database into electronic
and digital form.
• Thomson. ISI was acquired by Thomson Scientific & Healthcare in 1992 (for $ 210 million)
became known as Thomson ISI and now is part of the Healthcare & Science business of Thomson
Reuters. ISI offered bibliographic database services. Its specialty is citation indexing and
analysis, a field pioneered by Garfield. It maintains citation databases service Science
Citation Index (SCI), as well as the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), and the Arts and
Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). All of these are available via ISI’s Web of Knowledge database
service. The ISI also publishes the annual Journal Citation Reports (JCR) which list an impact
factor for each of the journals that it tracks. Within the scientific community, journal
impact factors play a large but controversial role in determining the kudos attached
to a scientist’s published research record.
• Thomson-Reuters.
Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational media and
financial-data firm based in New York City. It was created by the Thomson Corporation’s purchase
of Reuters Group on 17 April 2008. The Woodbridge Company, a holding company for the Thomson
family of Canada, owns 53% of the group, which operates in 100 countries, and has 60,000 employees.
Thomson Reuters was ranked as Canada’s ”leading corporate brand” in the 2010 Interbrand Best
Canadian Brands ranking. It is headquartered at 3 Times Square, Manhattan, New York City.
(Izvor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_Reuters )
• Zakljuˇ
cak: BIZNIS I VELIKI NOVAC!
7/49
Dve-tri mo´
cne liste kompanije Thomson-Reuters
ˇ
• Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) Casopisi
na ovoj listi su odabrani od
Thomson-Reuters-ovog tima kao oni koji ispunjavaju odred¯ene bibliografske kriterijume, od kojih se
istiˇce kao najvaˇzniji redovnost izlaˇ
zenja. Redovnost je vaˇzna jer se samo tako moˇze izraˇzunati
relevantni IMPAKT FAKTOR ˇ
casopisa.
• Science Citation Index (SCI) Prema Kobsonu:
Science Citation Index lista ˇcasopisa je deo Science Citation Index Expanded liste. SCI lista
se bazira na najuticajnijim ˇcasopisima: ˇcasopisi sa najviˇsim Impakt faktorom u svojoj nauˇcnoj
disciplini (oblasti) i ako je mogu´ce, najbolje rangirani casopisi iz svakog regiona. SCI-expanded je
postao svetski standard za pretraˇzivanje i bibliometrijsku analizu. SCI se, zbog strogih kriterijuma,
smatra kolekcijom ˇcasopisa sa najviˇsim Impakt faktorom, kolekcijom najuticajnijih med¯unarodnih i
regionalnih ˇcasopisa. Izbor jednog ˇcasopisa za SCI listu smatra se prestiˇznim dostignu´cem.
• Journal Citation Report (JCR) Ovaj proizvod Thomson-Reuters-a je JEDINO
MERILO uˇcinka nauˇcnih istraˇzivaˇca u mnogim zemljama gde je nauka slabo razvijena. Izveˇstaji
u obliku tzv. JCR liste koji se objavljuju u junu svake godine za svaku nauˇcnu disciplinu posebno,
sadrˇze spisak ˇcasopisa koji su rangirani po svom impakt faktoru (IF) za prethodnu godinu.
ˇ
• Kako do´
ci na SCIE/JCR listu? Casopis
se prijavi kompaniji Thomson-Reuters i
treba da ˇsalje po jedan primerak ˇstampane verzije svakog broja. Posle nekoliko godina, dobije se
obaveˇstenje da je ˇcasopis postavljen na SCIE listu (bez IF) a onda naredne godine ˇcasopis dobija
svoj prvi IF.
• Primer: Applicable Analysis and Discrete Mathematics Prvi broj: April
2007. Na SCIE listu smo postavljeni u junu 2010 bez IF. Prvi impakt faktor smo dobili 2011 (plava
zona). Slede´ce 2012. godine uˇsli smo u zelenu zonu po Kobsonu (IF= 0.754).
• Ko odluˇ
cuje? Mr. Rodney Chonka iz kompanije Thomson-Reuters.
8/49
9/49
Dear Prof. Merkle,
I am pleased to inform you that this journal has been accepted for the
following Thomson Reuters products beginning with volume 1(1) 2007:
Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCIE) including the Web of Science,
ISI Alerting Service, Current Contents/Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences (CC/PC&ES)
Please continue to send issues to the attention of ”Publication Processing” at our Philadelphia address as soon as they are published so that we
may process them promptly for inclusion in our database. We look forward
to coverage of this journal.
Sincerely,
Rodney Chonka Editor, Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences Healthcare
& Science Thomson Reuters
ˇ
IMPAKT FAKTOR ZA CASOPISE
10/49
Ovo je joˇs jedan proizvod kompanije Thomson-Reuters, smiˇsljen
od strane Eugene Garfield-a.
Impakt faktor IF (g, J) za godinu g i za ˇcasopis J raˇcuna se
po formuli
Cg (g − 1, J) + Cg (g − 2, J)
IF (g, J) =
N (g − 1, J) + N (g − 2, J)
gde je
• Cg (y, J) Broj citata radova iz ˇcasopisa J koji su objavljeni
u godini y a citirani u godini g. Raˇcunaju se samo citati u
ˇcasopisima sa JCR liste.
• N (y, J) Broj radova u ˇcasopisu J u godini y.
Impakt faktor za godinu g objavljuje se u junu godine g + 1.
ˇ
• Primer: Casopis
J je objavio u 2009 godini ukupno 30
radova, a u 2010 ukupno 27 radova. U 2011 godini ti radovi su
citirani ukupno 29 puta. Impakt faktor za 2011 godinu (koji
se objavljuje u junu 2012 godine) iznosi
IF (2011, J) =
29
= 0.509.
30 + 27
LISTE ZA MATEMATIKU
• JCR: Mathematics (289)
• JCR: Mathematics, applied (245)
• JCR: Mathematics, interdisciplinary applications (92)
• JCR: Statistics & Probability (116)
• AMS Reference list (516)
11/49
Kategorija: MATHEMATICS, prvih 10% (28 ˇ
casopisa)
Journal of the American Mathematical Society
Foundations of Computational Mathematics
Acta Mathematica
Annals of Mathematics
Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics
Inventiones Mathematicae
Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society
Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society
Publications Mathematiques de L’IHES
Fixed Point Theory and Applications
Journal of Differential Geometry
Duke Mathematical Journal
Nonlinear Analysis: Theory Methods and Applications
Annales Scientifiques de L Ecole Normale Superieure
Communications in Number Theory and Physics
Journal of the European Mathematical Society
Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society
Abstract and Applied Analysis
Mathematische Annalen
Geometry and Topology
Journal de Mathematiques Pures et Appliquees
Journal of Differential Equations
Geometric and Functional Analysis
Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations
Journal of Integral Equations and Applications
Compositio Mathematica
Advances in Mathematics
Analysis and Pde
3.841
3.615
3.333
2.928
2.575
2.339
2.321
2.259
2.143
1.634
1.583
1.537
1.536
1.460
1.412
1.404
1.324
1.318
1.297
1.295
1.295
1.277
1.246
1.235
1.188
1.187
1.177
1.172
Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications
Analysis and Applications
Computational Complexity
Constructive Approximation
Transactions of the American Mathematical Society
1.168
1.140
1.122
1.119
1.093
12/49
Kategorija: MATHEMATICS, 30% (29 − 86, 58 ˇ
casopisa)
Prvi deo: 29 − 60
Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications
Analysis and Applications
Computational Complexity
Constructive Approximation
Transactions of the American Mathematical Society
Journal of Functional Analysis
American Journal of Mathematics
Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems
Journal Fur Die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik
Random Structures and Algorithms
Journal of the Institute of Mathematics of Jussieu
International Mathematics Research Notices
Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications
Journal of Computational Mathematics
Fixed Point Theory
Michigan Mathematical Journal
Potential Analysis
Journal of Modern Dynamics
Discrete and Computational Geometry
Journal of Nonlinear and Convex Analysis
Journal of Algebraic Geometry
Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems
Logic Journal of the LGPL
Boundary Value Problems
Carpathian Journal of Mathematics
Expositiones Mathematicae
Communications in Partial Differential Equations
Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series B
Indiana University Mathematics Journal
Journal of Evolution Equations
Selecta Mathematica, New Series
Journal of Topology
1.168
1.140
1.122
1.119
1.093
1.082
1.057
1.056
1.042
1.034
1.022
1.014
1.001
0.978
0.970
0.948
0.943
0.942
0.938
0.933
0.932
0.913
0.913
0.911
0.906
0.902
0.894
0.892
0.886
0.883
0.879
0.868
13/49
Kategorija: MATHEMATICS, 30% (29 − 86, 57 ˇ
casopisa)
Drugi deo: 61-86
Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici
0.862
Revista Matematica Iberoamericana
0.852
Journal of Symplectic Geometry
0.848
Advances in Difference Equations
0.845
Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata
0.838
Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series A
0.826
Journal of Noncommutative Geometry
0.825
Journal of Convex Analysis
0.823
Calcolo
0.808
Interfaces and Free Boundaries
0.795
Journal of the London Mathematical Society. Second Series 0.789
Journal d’Analyse Mathematique
0.783
Bulletin of the Malaysian Mathematical Society. Ser. 2
0.779
Combinatorics Probability and Computing
0.778
Journal of Fixed Point Theory and Applications
0.776
Journal of Geometric Analysis
0.761
Integral Transforms and Special Functions
0.759
Applicable Analysis and Discrete Mathematics
0.754
Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics
0.752
Journal of K-Theory
0.750
Mathematische Zeitschrift
0.749
Israel Journal of Mathematics
0.745
Mathematical Research Letters
0.743
Documenta Mathematica
0.733
Journal of Dynamics and Differential Equations
0.733
Topological Methods in Nonlinear Analysis
0.733
Semigroup Forum
Advances in Differential Equations
Linear and Multilinear Algebra
Journal of Inequalities and Applications
Computational Geometry: Theory and Applications
0.730
0.727
0.727
0.726
0.725
14/49
Kategorija: MATHEMATICS, (87-100)
Semigroup Forum
Advances in Differential Equations
Linear and Multilinear Algebra
Journal of Inequalities and Applications
Computational Geometry: Theory and Applications
Annals of Global Analysis and Geometry
Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems
Science in China. Series A: Mathematics
Annali della Scoula Normale Superiore di Pisa, Claase di Scienze
Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society
Communications on Pure and Applied Analysis
Numerical Mathematics - Theory Methods and Applications
Advances in Calculus of Variations
Transformation Groups
ˇ
UKUPAN BROJ CASOPISA
NA SCI LISTI:
Mathematics: 289
Mathematics, Applied: 245
Mathematics, Interdisciplinary Applications: 92
Statistics & Probability: 116
15/49
0.730
0.727
0.727
0.726
0.725
0.714
0.702
0.701
0.695
0.693
0.692
0.692
0.688
0.688
AMS REFERENCE LIST
• ”AMS reference list” sadrˇzi trenutno 516 ˇcasopisa (od 15. januara
2013).
• Dva srpska ˇcasopisa su na ovoj listi: Applicable Analysis and Discrete
Mathematics i Publ. Inst. Math. (Beograd) (N.S.).
• Computers and Mathematics with Applications
• Impakt faktori se razlikuju od JRC (manji su).
16/49
ˇ
ˇ
VREDNOVANJE ISTRAZIVA
CA
ˇ
PREMA IMPAKT FAKTORU CASOPISA
17/49
• The use of journal impact factors instead of actual article citation
counts to evaluate individuals is a highly controversial issue – Eugene
Garfield ”The Agony and the Ecstasy: The History and Meaning of
the Journal Impact Factor” (2005)
http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jifchicago2005.pdf,
link na Kobsonu)
• Impakt faktor je merilo citiranosti ˇcasopisa i trebalo bi da se koristi
iskljuˇcivo u svrhu pored¯enja ˇcasopisa po tom kriterijumu.
• Impakt faktor u mnogim sluˇcajevima ne odraˇzava ni stvarni uticaj
ˇcasopisa na razvoj nauˇcne oblasti koju objavljuje.
• Objavljivanje rada u ˇcasopisu sa visokim impakt faktorom ne garantuje
da ´ce taj rad imati bilo kakvu citiranost.
• U mnogim sluˇcajevima je lakˇse objaviti rad u ˇcasopisu B nego u
ˇcasopisu A, iako je IF (A) < IF (B).
• Poˇsto se istraˇzivaˇci vrednuju prema impaktu ˇcasopisa, oni su motivisani
i naterani da objavljuju radove u neadekvatnim ˇcasopisima. Istraˇzivaˇc
koji bi svoj rad (prema oblasti) trebalo da objavi u ˇcasopisu A, odluˇcuje
da ga objavi u ˇcasopisu B samo zato ˇsto je IF (A) < IF (B). Na taj
naˇcin se smanjuje potencijalno citiranje dotiˇcnog rada! Moj primer.
• Visoka citiranost nauˇcnika nije garancija da je njegov rad znaˇcajan u
bilo kom smislu niti da ´ce ostaviti bilo kakav trag u matematici.
• Pojavom velikog broja ”grabljivaca” (predators), kako ˇcasopisa tako i
pojedinaca, znaˇcaj impakt faktora je obezvred¯en i doveden do apsurda.
• Forsiranjem nekih oblasti ”lake” matematike koje nemaju nikakav stvarni
znaˇcaj, a imaju puno ljudi i citiranosti obezvred¯uje se svaki smisao
pored¯enja nauˇcnika prema sopstvenoj citiranosti ili prema impakt faktoru ˇcasopisa u kome objavljuje.
H-FAKTOR I PRIMERI
• Istraˇzivaˇc koji ima N objavljenih radova ima indeks H = h ako h od tih
radova imaju najmanje h citata, a ostalih N − h radova imaju najvise h citata. Jorge E. Hirsch, An index to quantify an individuals scientific research
output, Department of Physics, University of California at San Diego, La
Jolla, CA in: Proc. National Academy Sci USA, 102 (2005), 16569-16572;
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/46/16569.full.pdf
• Faktor H je neopadaju´ca funkcija vremena: sa vremenom, tj. sa
godinama proteklim od prvog objavljenog rada moˇze samo da raste.
• PRIMERI (prema Math Reviews):
• Ja imam H = 5 sa 35 objavljenih radova (prvi rad 1974, kao student
druge godine ETF-a).
• Dobitnik Abelove nagrade za 2012 godinu, Endre Szemer´edi ima H =
24 i 173 publikovana rada (prvi rad 1964).
• N.N. iz Srbije ima H = 21 sa 334 publikovana rada (prvi rad 1996).
• Kada je lansiran H-faktor smatralo se da je on idealna mera kvaliteta
nauˇcnog rada. . . Svako merenje menja sistem koji se meri!
• DA LI KVANTITET UVEK PRELAZI U KVALITET?
18/49
ˇ
KOLIKO RADOVA GODISNJE
PUBLIKUJU
ˇ
´
MATEMATICARI
IZ VODECIH
INSTITUCIJA
U SVETU?
Godiˇ
snja produkcija radova po istraˇ
zivaˇ
cu
• University of Chicago 1.38
• Berkeley University 1.65
• Princeton University 1.83
• Imperial College London 1.87
• Harvard University 1.89
• IMPA Rio de Janeiro 2.03
Izvor: Nedeljnik Veja, Rio de Janeiro, 22. mart 2011.
19/49
MANIPULACIJE I ZLOUPOTREBE
ˇ
• Casopisi
i njihovo muvanje
• Urednici i zloupotrebe
• Autori - ”organizovani zloˇ
cinaˇ
cki poduhvat”
20/49
Douglas N. Arnold
School of Mathematics, University of Minnesota
Arnold, Douglas N.
* Earliest Indexed Publication: 1979
* Total Publications: 70
* Total Citations: 2341
* Main area: Numerical analysis
Integrity Under Attack: The State of Scholarly Publishing,
SIAM NEWS 42, No 10, December 2009
INS: Arnold on sci frauds.pdf [4]
21/49
Integrity Under Attack:
The State of Scholarly Publishing
By Douglas N. Arnold
Scientific journals are surely important. They provide the most effective means for disseminating and
archiving scientific results, and so are a key part of an enterprise on which our health, security, and
prosperity ultimately depend. Publications are used by universities, funding agencies, and others as a
primary measure of research productivity and impact. They play a decisive role in hiring, promotion,
and salary decisions, and in the ranking of departments, institutions, even nations. With big rewards
tied to publication, it is not surprising that some people engage in unethical behavior, abuse, and
downright fraud. Still, when I started to look at the issues more closely, I was appalled by what I
found. In this column, I give a few troubling examples of misconduct by authors and by journals in
applied mathematics. One conclusion I draw is that common bibliometrics—such as the impact factor
for journals and citation counts for authors—are easily manipulated not only in theory, but also in
practice, and that their use in ranking and judging should be curtailed.
SIAM places great value on scholarly publishing, of course, and we are taking strong actions to ensure
the integrity of our own publications and to protect our authors from theft of their work. But we are
still struggling to decide just what actions we should take. So I invite the thoughts of members of the
SIAM community. If you have witnessed troubling incidents in journal publication, let me know. Do
you think such incidents are on the rise? Should SIAM be doing more? Should we look beyond our
own publications and authors?
Author misconduct—most obviously verbatim plagiarism, but also more subtle appropriation of ideas
and duplicate publication—has always been with us. At SIAM, however, our impression is that the
problem is becoming far more common. Perhaps even more disturbing is journal misconduct, carried
out by publishers and editors, often with an evident profit motive. One example is a sloppy or sham
peer review process designed to produce the impression of a serious scholarly journal without the
substance. Another is the deliberate manipulation of citation statistics in order to raise the impact
factor or other journal bibliometrics.
A recent case involving SIAM brings in both author and journal misconduct. A paper published in a
SIAM journal in 2008 was plagiarized essentially verbatim from a preprint version posted by the
authors on the web. A copied version of the paper appeared in the International Journal of Statistics
and Systems in the same year with different title and authors. SIAM's publisher, vice president for
publications, executive director, and I undertook a full investigation, which required nearly six months.
The case got messier and more disturbing week by week. I decided that our final report on it should be
made fully public; it is available on the web, where you can read the details.1
Meanwhile, here are some of the sad conclusions. Based on the papers that we reviewed, we
determined that the suspect authors had committed plagiarism in this and various other cases. At least
1
four articles published under their names in four different journals are essentially verbatim copies of
the articles of other authors, and we have reason to believe that there are other cases as well. The
journal publisher, Research India Publications, publishes nearly 50 journals, many related to applied
mathematics, but did not respond to our inquiries about the plagiarized article. We contacted the
editor-in-chief listed on the journal web page, but he himself has been unable to contact the journal!
After learning about this incident from us, he submitted his resignation to the journal but has received
no response from the publisher; his name, along with those of numerous other distinguished
mathematicians, remains on the journal website.
Rumors of editor and journal misconduct have dominated the highly publicized case of the applied
math journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (CSF), published by Elsevier. As reported in a 2008 article
in Nature,2 “Five of the 36 papers in the December issue of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals alone were
written by its editor-in-chief, Mohamed El Naschie. And the year to date has seen nearly 60 papers
written by him appear in the journal.” In fact, of the 400 papers by El Naschie indexed in Web of
Science, 307 were published in CSF while he was editor-in-chief. This extremely high rate of selfpublication by the editor-in-chief led to charges that normal standards of peer-review were not upheld
at CSF; it has also had a large effect on the journal’s impact factor. (Thomson Reuters calculates the
impact factor of a journal in a given year as C/A, where A is the number of articles published in the
journal in the preceding two years, and C is the number of citations to those articles from articles
indexed in the Thomson Reuters database and published in the given year.) El Naschie’s papers in CSF
make 4992 citations, about 2000 of which are to papers published in CSF, largely his own. In 2007, of
the 65 journals in the Thomson Reuters category “Mathematics, Interdisciplinary Applications,” CSF
was ranked number 2.
Another journal whose high impact factor raises eyebrows is the International Journal of Nonlinear
Science and Numerical Simulation (IJNSNS), founded in 2000 and published by Freund Publishing
House. For the past three years, IJNSNS has had the highest impact factor in the category
“Mathematics, Applied.” There are a variety of connections between IJNSNS and CSF. For example,
Ji-Huan He, the founder and editor-in-chief of IJNSNS, is an editor of CSF, and El Naschie is one of
the two co-editors of CSF; both publish copiously, not only in their own journals but also in each
other's, and they cite each other frequently.
Let me describe another element that contributes to IJNSNS's high impact factor. The Institute of
Physics (IOP) publishes Journal of Physics: Conference Series (JPCS). Conference organizers pay to
have proceedings of their conferences published in JPCS, and, in the words of IOP, “JPCS asks
Conference Organisers to handle the peer review of all papers.” Neither the brochure nor the website
for JPCS lists an editorial board, nor does either describe any process for judging the quality of the
conferences. Nonetheless, Thomson Reuters counts citations from JPCS in calculating impact factors.
One of the 49 volumes of JPCS in 2008 was the proceedings of a conference organized by IJNSNS
editor-in-chief He at his home campus, Shanghai Donghua University. This one volume contained 221
papers, with 366 references to papers in IJNSNS and 353 references to He. To give you an idea of the
effect of this, had IJNSNS not received a single citation in 2008 beyond the ones in this conference
proceedings, it would still have been assigned a larger impact factor than any SIAM journal except for
SIAM Review.
Another example of journal misconduct was revealed with an element of comedy. In “‘CRAP’ paper
accepted for publication,” published online in June in Science News, senior editor Janet Raloff3
described an experiment in which Cornell graduate student Philip Davis and a friend used a computer
program, SCIgen, to generate a random document; the grammar and vocabulary were those of a
2
computer science research paper, but the document was completely free of meaningful content. (The
paper opens, “Compact symmetries and compilers have garnered tremendous interest from both
futurists and biologists in the last several years. The flaw of this type of solution, however, is that
DHTs can be made empathic, large-scale, and extensible.'' Four pages later, it concludes, “We expect
to see many futurists move to studying TriflingThamyn in the very near future.” Indeed!) The paper
was submitted to The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ), published by Bentham Science, a
publisher of more than 200 open-access scientific journals (many of which, according to the publisher’s
website, have high impact factors). Although the paper was submitted under pseudonyms and with the
give-away affiliation Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, or CRAP, Davis was notified four
months later that the “submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process
in TOISCIJ.” Following the open-access model, the publisher told the authors that the paper would be
published as soon as they sent a check for $800. (They declined to do so.)
The cases I have recounted are appalling, but clear-cut. Perhaps even more dangerous are the less
obvious cases: publishers who do not do away with peer review, but who adjust it according to
nonscientific factors; journals that may not engage in wide-scale and systematic self-citation, but that
apply subtle pressures on authors and editors to adjust citations in favor of the journal, rather than
based on scholarly grounds; authors who may not steal text verbatim, but who lift ideas without giving
proper credit. These are much harder to measure and adjudicate. What do you think? Are such
practices significantly distorting the scientific literature or enterprise? Do you have a story of such
dubious practices to tell?
One conclusion that I am ready to draw is that we need to back away from the use of bibliometrics like
the impact factor in judging scientific quality. It has long been noted that what the impact factor
measures is not well correlated with the quality of a journal, and even much less with the scientific
quality of the papers appearing in it or of the authors of those papers. In our field, the 2008 IMUICIAM-IMS report Citation Statistics4 made that case eloquently. Less emphasized has been that these
metrics are open to gaming, and are in fact being gamed; in some cases they are likely a better indicator
of the unscrupulousness of the authors, editors, or publishers than of the quality of their work.
Frequently, I hear of technical solutions, proposed in the hope that an adjustment to the formula—for
example, increasing the time frame for the impact factor from 2 to 5 years, or excluding self-citations—
will solve the problem. Such remedies, in my opinion, are doomed to failure. The numbers of
citations to mathematical articles are small integers, with excellent papers often drawing lifetime totals
of only tens or hundreds of citations, and such numbers are easily manufactured. What one editor can
do in one journal by self-citation, a pair of editors can do with two journals without self-citation.
Counting can never replace expert opinion.
What can we, as concerned scientists, do? Of course, the first step is to look to ourselves: As
scientists, we should place great emphasis on scientific integrity, in what we write and what we review.
Ask yourself some questions before lending your name to a journal as an editor. Does that journal hew
to high standards of peer review? Does it have clear policies and mechanisms for enforcing them? Is
its output a useful addition to the sprawling scientific literature? We also need to educate others, not
only our students, but also our colleagues and administrators and managers. The next time you are in a
situation where a publication count, or a citation number, or an impact factor is brought in as a measure
of quality, raise an objection. Let people know how easily these can be, and are being, manipulated.
We need to look at the papers themselves, the nature of the citations, and the quality of the journals. I
look forward to learning from the experiences and thoughts of the SIAM community. You can reach
me at [email protected]
3
1 www.siam.org/journals/plagiary
2 Nature, vol. 456, 27 November 2008, page 432.
3 www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/44706/title/Science_+_the_Public__‘CRAP’_paper_accepted_for_publication
4 www.iciam.org/QAR/CitationStatistics-FINAL.PDF
4
26/49
M. Sivasubramanian, S. Kalimuthu
A Computer Application In Mathematics,
Computers and Mathematics with Applications 59 (2010)
296–297
IF (2010) = 1.472
Mathematics, Applied: 33/236
INS: CAM on geometry with applications.pdf [2]
Computers and Mathematics with Applications 59 (2010) 296–297
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers and Mathematics with Applications
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/camwa
A computer application in mathematics
M. Sivasubramanian a,∗ , S. Kalimuthu b
a
Department of Mathematics, Dr. Mahalingam College of Engineering and Technology, Pollachi, Tamilnadu-642003, India
b
212/4, Kanjampatti P.O., Pollachi via, Tamilnadu-642 003, India
article
info
Article history:
Received 15 April 2009
Accepted 20 July 2009
abstract
In this study, a computer application was used to solve a mathematical problem.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Number theory
Algebra
Geometry
Euclidean postulates
Non-Euclidean geometries and physical
applications to geometry
1. Introduction
Geometry is the second field of mathematics. It is the extension of number theory. There is no exact period for the
origin of classical geometry. Euclid was the first mathematician who compiled Elements which contains propositions and
constructions. In Elements, Euclid assumed five postulates. Euclid could not prove the parallel postulate. After Euclid almost
all mathematicians attempted to deduce the fifth postulate from the first four postulates. But unfortunately all of them failed.
The studies on this famous historical problem gave birth to two consistent models of non-Euclidean geometries. These affine
geometries are widely used in quantum physics and relativistic mechanics. Also, the surveys and research led to a number
of propositions equivalent to the fifth postulate. Saccheri’s similar triangle proposition is well known equivalent axiom to
the parallel postulate. In this work the authors derive the preliminary result and sincerely propose the open problem by
using a physical phenomena.
2. Preliminary result
In classical and Riemannian geometries we can construct similar triangles. But it is impossible to draw a triangle similar
to the given triangle in Lobachevskian geometry. Let ABC be the given Lobachevskian triangle. Magnify this triangle. And let
A0 B0 C0 be the magnified triangle of the given Lobachevskian triangle ABC. It is well known that in magnification the angles
are preserved. So, the Lobachevskian triangles ABC and A0 B0 C0 are similar. Without assuming Euclid’s fifth postulate, we
have derived this preliminary result. This establishes Saccheri’s theorem [1–4]. But it has been shown once and for all that
the fifth postulate is a special case. The authors have proved this impossibility in their paper [5,6].
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Sivasubramanian), [email protected] (S. Kalimuthu).
0898-1221/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2009.07.048
M. Sivasubramanian, S. Kalimuthu / Computers and Mathematics with Applications 59 (2010) 296–297
297
3. Conclusion
Computer magnification is a Universal computer phenomenon. This technique is applied in physics, astronomy, biology,
medicine, architecture, particle physics, genetics, microbiology and in chemistry. Without magnification, deep studies and
research are impossible. For the first time in the history of mathematics, the authors applied magnification technology and
obtained a solution for a nearly 4300 year old parallel postulate problem. In brief an impossible proposition was proved as
possible. This is a problematic problem. Further studies will give birth to a new branch of mathematical science.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Chairman Emeritus Dr. N. Mahalingam, Chairman Shri. M. Manickam, the Correspondent Shri.
Shankar Vanavarayar, the Secretary Prof. C. Ramasamy, the Director Dr. S. Vijayarangan, the Principal Dr. V.V. Sreenarayanan
and the Head of the Department of Mathematics Dr. M. Palanivel for their encouragement for the preparation of this paper.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
www.groups.dcs.standac.uk/~history/HisTopics/Non.Euclidean_geometry.
www.cut-the-knot.org.
http://www.softsurfer.com/history.html.
www.beva.org/math323/asgn6/nov19.htm.
M. Sivasubramanian, S. Kalimuthu, On the new branch of mathematical science, Journal of Mathematics and Statistics 04 (2) (2008) 122–123.
M. Sivasubramanian, S. Kalimuthu, On the new branch of mathematical science Part 2, Journal of Mathematics and Statistics 04 (3) (2008) 146–147.
ˇ JEDAN RAD
I JOS
Applied Mathematics Letters, 2010
IF(2010) = 1.155
Mathematics, Applied: 73/236
INS: MR:-new-theory.pdf [1]
29/49
Citations
Previous
Up
Next
Article
From References: 0
From Reviews: 0
MR2659153 (2011f:51018) 51M04
Sivasubramanian, M. (6-MCET-M)
New parallel theory. (English summary)
Appl. Math. Lett. 23 (2010), no. 9, 1137–1139.
Summary: “It is well known that for a given line, there is only one parallel line through a point in
Euclidean space, there are many parallel lines through a point in Lobachevskian space and there
are no parallel through a point in spherical space. But in this work, the author has attempted and
showed that there is a set of parallel segment spheres.”
{For additional information pertaining to this item see [Appl. Math. Lett. 24 (2011), no. 3, 406;
MR2741055].}
REVISED (May, 2011)
Current version of review. Go to earlier version.
c Copyright American Mathematical Society 2011, 2013
ˇ
ˇ
AUTORI - ”ORGANIZOVANI ZLOCINA
CKI
PODUHVAT” 31/49
• Klike autora koji se uzajamno citiraju
U nekim sluˇcajevima je praktiˇcno nemogu´ce na´ci recenzenta van
klike.
To je indikacija da je oblast kojom se rad bavi ”kontaminirana”
Ipak mnogi ˇcasopisi objavljuju te radove jer je izvesno da im donose
visok IF.
• Kopiranje teksta iz svojih ili tud¯ih radova
Autori koji ne znaju kako da napiˇsu uvod, kopiraju ga ponekad i u
celini iz drugih radova
• Pozajmljivanje ideja bez navod¯enja izvora
• Potpuni plagijati nisu retki
• Slanje istog rada u viˇ
se ˇ
caopisa istovremeno
• Ista ideja u viˇ
se radova, apsurdne generalizacije.
• Na sre´cu, postoji internet, ali nije uvek lako na´ci trag!
• Timski rad?
AKCIJA I REAKCIJA
• Kako se ocenjuju istraˇ
zivaˇ
ci u razvijenim zemljama?
• Kome odgovara IF?
• Kome ne odgovara IF ?
• IMU - Svetsko matematiˇ
cko druˇ
stvo
32/49
Kako se vrednuju istraˇ
zivaˇ
ci u razvijenim zemljama?
33/49
• Ja se ne razumem previse u te impakt faktore, ali
pretpostavljam da je to dobro, i vremenom
ce biti sve bolje i bolje.
(Bivˇsa asistentkinja koja je otiˇsla iz Srbije i ”tamo” objavila rad u
”Annals of Mathematics” u mejlu u kome odgovara na moje hvaljenje
da je AADM postigao veliki impakt faktor).
• Ni kvantitet radova niti impakt faktor ˇcasopisa nisu presudni u vrednovanju.
• Oblasti kojima se bave i uticaj na razvoj tih oblasti.
• Ko ´ce to da odredi kad niko nije pop svom selu?
• Imamo puno matematiˇcara po svetu, neka nam oni kaˇzu.
KOME ODGOVARA VREDNOVANJE PREKO IF?
• Izdavaˇckim firmama
• Komisijama za vrednovanje (samo sabiraju poene)
• Komisijama za unapred¯enje i izbor: dovoljno je da znaju da sabiraju!
• Nauˇcnicima, jer imaju jednostavan algoritam ˇsta treba da rade da bi
napredovali.
• Treba samo da skupljaju poene!
• Pozitivna povratna sprega u sistemu vrednovanja ˇcasopisa i nauˇcnika
dovodi do neograniˇcenog porasta IF.
34/49
KOME NE ODGOVARA VREDNOVANJE PREKO IF?
• NAUCI PRE SVEGA
• Nauˇcnicima koji nisu dovoljno inteligentni da shvate da treba da skupljaju poene umesto da se bave naukom
35/49
36/49
.
INTERNATIONAL MATHEMATICAL UNION
www.mathunion.org
THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL
FOR INDUSTRIAL AND APPLIED
MATHEMATICS
http://www.iciam.org/
Avgust 2010 – Novembar 2011 - Oktobar 2012
.
BLOG on Mathematical Journals
http://blog.mathunion.org, Posted on November 18, 2011
Information technology is changing the journal publication landscape in
many ways. Some changes are all for the better; for instance, the availability of electronic versions of a paper makes the content much more widely
accessible.
Other changes are more controversial, or even almost universally condemned. Calls have been made for professional
societies to formulate official positions on some of these.
In order to assess the views of the international mathematical community on journal-related issues, IMU (INTERNATIONAL MATHEMATICAL UNION) and ICIAM (THE
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR INDUSTRIAL AND
APPLIED MATHEMATICS) have created the BLOG on
Mathematical Journals that will be hosted by the IMU website
An important issue that IMU and ICIAM want to address
is JOURNAL RATING.
The past few decades have seen the emergence of indices
or factors that try to quantify this information, by tracking
various quantitative statistics. This has resulted in ratings of
journals, which are then used (and misused) in a variety of
ways. In response to this, the General Assembly of the IMU
passed in August 2010 the resolution. . . to create a Working
Group jointly with ICIAM to study this issue and to suggest
a different ways of journal ranking.
The joint Working Group created by the IMU and ICIAM has complete
its work and has made a REPORT:
37/49
38/49
...
We propose that each rated journals be assigned to one of
four tiers.
• Tier 1: A top journal in mathematics or a major subfield
of it. Almost all papers published are of very high quality,
and it regularly publishes papers that are of great signiificance. Peer-review is applied consistently and rigorously,
and editorial work is carried out by leading mathematicians.
• Tier 2: Very strong journal with a carefully run and reliable peer-review process. Papers are generally of high
quality, and regularly papers are published which are of
significant importance in at least a subfield of mathematics.
• Tier 3: Solid journal that generally publishes reputable
work and follows accepted practices of peer review, but
are generally less selective than journals of Tier 2, and
paper quality is more variable. Such journals may play
an important role in specific communities, but are usually not considered highly important to mathematics or
a subfield globally.
• Tier 4: Journals not found to meet the standards of the
other tiers.
...
A first public forum on the report, at a minisymposium at the ICIAM
conference in July 2011, showed that the issue and the report evoked strong
reactions in many different directions. In order to get a wider community
response, it was decided to open a blog in which all mathematicians could
contribute their views on the recommendations of the report.
We invite the mathematical community to provide their views on the 39/49
journal rating issue, and on whether IMU and ICIAM should formulate
their own rating. Views on how to establish and update this rating would
also be welcome.
The Moderating Group (appointed by ICIAM and IMU jointly) consists of Doug Arnold, Carol Hutchins, Nalini Joshi, Peter Olver, Fabrice
Planchon and Tao Tang, with Peter Olver as chair.
We invite you to submit your comments below!
Ingrid Daubechies, President, IMU
Barbara Lee Keyfitz, President, ICIAM BLOG on Mathematical Journals
Posted on November 18, 2011
Keyfitz, Barbara Lee
Department of Mathematics, Ohio State University,
* Earliest Indexed Publication: 1970
* Total Publications: 66
* Total Citations: 578
* Main area: Partial differential equations
40/49
Johannes Huebschmann on December 10, 2011: professor
USTL, UFR de Mathmatiques, CNRS-UMR 8524, 59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq
Cedex, France
Huebschmann, Johannes
* Earliest Indexed Publication: 1977
* Total Publications: 70
* Total Citations: 494
* Main areas: Global analysis, Group theory.
I am against mathematics journal ranking, for the reasons
given by others. In particular I very much share the views of J. Ball
and I. Ekeland.
In case the international mathematics community is really forced to pursue this issue, the only reasonable journal rating I can see would be
• journals meeting the standard
• journals below standards.
Jean-Paul Allouche on November 19, 2011 at 11:55 said:
Directeur de Recherche CNRS, Paris
Allouche, Jean-Paul
* Earliest Indexed Publication: 1977
* Total Publications: 129
* Total Citations: 779
* Main area: Number Theory
Though I fully understand the reasons for creating a homemade ranking,
though I fully agree with the opinions about dangers and or stupidities of
all other ways of ranking, I am *strongly* against creating any
ranking. My reasons are the evident ones: no really serious ranking is
possible, but also any ranking is *certainly* going to be misused at some
point. An intense campaign of continuous lobbying by mathematicians
showing the absurdity of *any* ranking seems to me largely better (after all
mathematicians are probably *the* people who can prove that absurdity).
41/49
Stefan Samko on November 20, 2011 at 00:00 said:
Professor Jubilado, Universidade do Algarve
42/49
Samko, Stefan Grigorevich
* Earliest Indexed Publication: 1965
* Total Publications: 215
* Total Citations: 1860
* Main area: Real functions, Operator Theory
In support of the attitude of the working group, all my experience, as well
as that of many my coauthors and colleagues shows that Impact Factor
approach to the evaluation of our research in mathematics
is dangerous indeed, because it allows for administrations,
panels and so on to judge formally knowing nothing about
the level of the resarch and its actuality.
43/49
Wolfgang Soergel on November 20, 2011 at 21:22 said:
Professor, Mathematisches Institut Albert-Ludwigs-Universit¨at Freiburg
Soergel, Wolfgang
* Earliest Indexed Publication: 1986
* Total Publications: 30
* Total Citations: 691
* Main area: Nonassociative rings and
algebras
I am extremely sceptical about a rating of mathematical
journals organized by the IMU/ICIAM.
I can see no reason why this scheme of assigning a number from 1 to 4 to
each journal should be misused less than other already existing simplistic
schemes like the impact factor. I rather think that efforts to argue against
these kind of simplistic schemes would be greatly hampered by the fact
mathematicians also organize such a rating by themselves.
Andrew Mathas on November 21, 2011 at 03:10 said:
Professor
School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney, Australia
44/49
Mathas, Andrew
* Earliest Indexed Publication: 1994
* Total Publications: 38
* Total Citations: 632
* Main area: Group theory and generalizations
I have trouble seeing any value in this exercise. As the report
from the working party states clearly, bibliometric data provides a
poor proxy for measuring the quality of research or of a journal.
Rather than attempting to create yet another imperfect index I think
that the mathematical community would be better served if we put our
efforts into overturning the current reliance by administrators and governments on these superficial metrics.
The best outcome that the IMU/ICIAM can hope or in creating their
own journal ranking system is that this system will be widely adopted to
JUDGE the quality of mathematics papers. Is this really what we want?
I think that the message that all of us, including the IMU and ICIAM,
should be pushing is how rank all of these ranking systems are.
45/49
J.R. Strooker on November 30, 2011 at 00:00 said:
Mathematisch Instituut, Universiteit Utrecht, Postbus 80010, 3508 TA
Utrecht, The Netherlands
Strooker, Jan Rustom
* Earliest Indexed Publication: 1965
* Total Publications: 23
* Total Citations: 71
* Main area: Commutative rings and algebras
To me it seems a mistake to draft a proposal on how bibliometric statistics should be used, rather than trying to convince authorities that such considerations should at most
marginally influence choices. Such choices should in principle depend on the judgment of a mathematical peer group.
Your proposal may lead to a kind of authorised procedure by which various
burocracies will be only too pleased to proceed.
Ivar Ekeland on December 8, 2011 at 19:07 said:
Professor Emeritus, Paris-Dauphine and UBC
46/49
Ekeland, Ivar
* Earliest Indexed Publication: 1968
* Total Publications: 150
* Total Citations: 3094
* Main area: Global analysis, optimal control
I am very strongly against introducing any official rating of mathematical
journals. The perverse effects of such a system is now apparent:
- The question of where to publish now is almost as important as what
to publish.
Prof Milan Merkle on February 9, 2012 at 16:30 said:
There are Elsevier and Thomson-Reuters out there: where
is Mathematics?
. . . Before the times when our academic positions started to depend on
the number of articles that we had published in certain high rated journals, we all knew which journals were good, although they had not been
officially rated. How did we know that? You see a famous persons article
there, you find interesting stuff, you find hard stuff, and you see that good
mathematicians publish there. Thats it!
It was Thomson company that was promoting IF as a measure of quality
of journals. Scientific bureaucracy in many countries liked the idea and
adopted IF as a convenient unique measure of scientific achievements of
people. Many scientists in those countries begun to strive for IF, as their
professional life depended on it: the slogan publish or perish turned into
IF or perish. To answer the emerging need for IFs, commercial publishers
opened new possibilities to scientists from the third world and eeryone else
: journals with high IF, offering their services to IF hunters.
While large and developed mathematical communities have various degrees of success in resisting the IFomania, the consequences in emerging
and undeveloped math communities are devastating.
If we define any quantitative measure of quality, then the
market forces will work in the direction of raising this measure in the cost of loosing the quality. Any attempt to replace IF with some other number or an algorithm, would soon
yield similar grave consequences, because there will always
be some participants in the game that will find a common interest in misbehaving of some sort in order to increase their
ratings by collecting points instead of doing good mathematics.
47/49
48/49
Ingrid Daubechies on the IMU blog and journals
Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA,
President of the IMU
Daubechies, Ingrid Chantal
* Earliest Indexed Publication: 1977
* Total Publications: 109
* Total Citations: 4021
* Main area: Fourier analysis
The stated goal of this blog at its start was to collect opinions from
the mathematical community about a proposal that the IMU and ICIAM
start a committee that would produce a rating of mathematical research
journals. It has fulfilled that goal; as reported in the July issue of the IMUNet Newsletter, the IMU has decided not to go forward with
the creation of such a committee.
Very soon after the opening of this blog, it became a forum where mathematicians also formulated suggestions for possible IMU roles related to
various other important issues concerning mathematical journals. The
early discussion here led to several prominent members of
our community articulating their frustration with the present
situation of scholarly publishing in mathematics, and in particular with pricing policies making it very hard for all but
the most prominent and wealthy universities to keep up with
the cost of subscriptions. This public discussion probably played a
role in the later development of thecostofknowledge.com site, where, following Tim Gowers’ lead, many of us very publicly and firmly stated our
opposition to these pricing policies. The protest took the form of a boycott
of one particular publisher, Elsevier, and was (as of Oct 16, 2012) signed
by over 12,801 scientists (the policies we were protesting are not limited to
mathematics), including 2,189 mathematicians.
But whatever happens, it is clear that great change can lead to great 49/49
upsets. Our whole community would benefit from orderly transitions for
our journals to the new publication model(s). The best possible transition
will happen if there is broad community support for the journals. With
present pricing policies, publishing companies are undermining the possibility of a truly community-wide support. I personally know of several
editorial boards of high profile journals where many members are torn: on
the one hand, they agree with many of the issues raised by the statement
of purpose at thecostofknowledge.com, on the other hand they don’t want
to cause mayhem for the excellent journals to which they have devoted
considerable amounts of energy and time, in service to their mathematical
communities. I have also been asked for advice by young people who are
offered positions on Editorial Boards, and are tempted by this recognition
of their rising status in their community, but who resonate as well with the
Statement of Purpose of thecostofknowledge.com .
Let me formulate here a very simple proposal that, if implemented, would
not upset the identity of the existing journals, that would enable commercial publishing houses to continue to make a living while servicing the
publication needs of the mathematical community, but that nevertheless
would make a real difference to the mathematical community:
EMANCIPATION of our journals : set our journals free!
Matematiˇ
cki ˇ
casopisi u svetu i kod nas:
sadaˇ
snjost i budu´
cnost
— Drugi deo —
Milan Merkle
• Srbija - zemlja nauke
• Sveti impakt faktor
• Manipulacije i zloupotrebe
• Akcija i reakcija
•
• Kome odgovara Ifovanje-(2)
• Timski rad kroz decenije
• Koliko publikuju matematiˇcari u zemljama bez
ifomanije
• Najnovija vest
• Bojkot Elsevier-a
• EMS Ethics Committee - Code of Practice (2012)
• AADM-nekad i sad
• Open Access Journals (OAJ) ?
ˇki institut SANU, 1. februar
Matematic
2013.
0/48
KOME ODGOVARA IFOVANJE∗- (2)
∗ upotreba IF za rangiranje ˇ
casopisa u sprezi sa
vrednovanjem istraˇ
zivaˇ
ca
IFOVANJE ODGOVARA SKORO SVIMA,
ZATO SE TOLIKO DUBOKO UKORENILO!
ZBOG POZITIVNE POVRATNE SPREGE, SA VREMENOM RASTE:
• IF ˇcasopisa
• Godiˇsnja produkcija radova po istraˇzivaˇcu (GP)
• Broj koautora po radu (K),
• Ne samo da se pove´cava IF autora, nego i kreacija radova postaje lakˇsa!
Hipoteza:
lim IF (v) · GP (v) · K(v) = +∞
v→+∞
?
Verovatno ne, zato ˇsto mali procenat ljudi kojima ifovanje ne odgovara,
ˇcini veliki broj kada se sabere. . . A njihova odela su stvarna . . .
. . . Nastavak posle reklama . . .
INS: Kakolako.pdf [2]
1/48
TIMSKI RAD KROZ DECENIJE
4/48
Deo radova sa viˇ
se od jednog autora
u odnosu na ukupan broj radova
• Publikacije ETF-a, serija Matematika 1970 (Nos 330–337): 2/8=0.25
• Publikacije ETF-a, serija Matematika 1992, No 3: 2/11=0.18
• Applicable Analysis and Discrete Mathematics 6(2012), No. 2: 8/10=0.8
• Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 30, No. 3 (Jun
1970): 5/21=0.24
• Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 180, No. 2 (Decembar 1993): 12/19=0.6
• Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 401, No. 1 (Maj
2013): 33/47=0.7
• Annals of Mathematics, 91, No. 3, (May 1970) : 3/9 = 0.33
• Annals of Mathematics, 138, No. 3, (November 1993): 4/7 = 0.57
• Annals of Mathematics, 177 , No 2 (2013): 4/8 = 0.5
5/48
ˇ
KOLIKO PUBLIKUJU MATEMATICARI
– u zemljama bez ifomanije–
• Proseˇcna godiˇsnja produkcija radova po matematiˇcaru
• Pomenuti u prethodnom delu prezentacije
• Naˇsi matematiˇcari u inostranstvu
• Dobitnici Fields-ove medalje
• Dobitnici Abel-ove nagrade
PORUKA OD AUTORA:
• Izbor primera je kvazi-sluˇ
cajan
• Ovaj deo prezentacije ima za cilj da pokaˇ
ze samo
koliko radova godiˇ
snje proizvode nauˇ
cnici iz razvijenih matematiˇ
ckih sredina
• Na taj naˇ
cin ˇ
zelim da pokaˇ
zem da su kvantitativna merila apsurdna i da ih treba zameniti sa
kvalitativnim.
• Nije cilj da se favorizuju oni koji proizvode malo
ni da se diskredituju oni koji proizvode mnogo.
ˇ
KOLIKO RADOVA GODISNJE
PUBLIKUJU
ˇ
´
MATEMATICARI
IZ VODECIH
INSTITUCIJA
U SVETU?
Proseˇ
cna godiˇ
snja produkcija radova matematiˇ
cara
• University of Chicago 1.38
• Berkeley University 1.65
• Princeton University 1.83
• Imperial College London 1.87
• Harvard University 1.89
• IMPA Rio de Janeiro 2.03
Izvor: Nedeljnik Veja, Rio de Janeiro, 22. mart 2011.
6/48
POMENUTI U PRVOM DELU PREZENTACIJE
Ovde i na naredne 4 strane prikazana je srednja godiˇ
snja
produkcija publikacija (GP ) matematiˇ
cara:
GP =
N
,
2013 − pg
gde je
• pg – godina u kojoj je objavljen prva publikacija.
• N – ukupan broj publikacija prema MathSciNet-u od godine pg zakljuˇ
cno sa 2012.
• Za matematiˇ
care koji nisu ˇ
zivi, umesto 2013 uzeta je
godina njihove poslednje publikacije +1.
• Barbara Keyfitz, SAD, predsednica ICIAM 1.53 - PDJ
• Ingrid Daubechies, predsednica IMU, Prinston, SAD 3 Wavelets
• Douglas Arnold, SAD, bivˇsi predsednik SIAM-a 2 Numeriˇcka analiza
• Jean-Paul Allouche, Francuska 3.6 - Teorija brojeva
• Johannes Huebschmann, Francuska 1.94 - Globalna analiza, teorija
grupa
• Stefan Samko, Portugalija 4.48 - Realne funkcije
• Wolfgang Soergel, Nemaˇcka 1.1 Algebra
• Andrew Mathas, Australija 2 Teorija grupa
• Jan Rustom Strooker, Holandija 0.5 Algebra
• Ivar Ekeland, Francuska 3.3 Globalna analiza, optimizacija
´
• Jean-Pierre Demailly, Institut Fourier, Saint-Martin dHeres,
Francuska
2.7 Complex analysis, algebraic geometry
Izvor: http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/
7/48
ˇ MATEMATICARI
ˇ
NASI
U SVETU
Izvor: http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/
• Danijela Damjanovi´c, Rice University, Houston, USA 0.8 Dinamiˇcki
sistemi
• Stevo Todorˇcevi´c, Universit´e Paris 7, Francuska i University of Toronto,
Kanada 3.8 Logika
• Vlajko Koci´c, Xavier University of Louisiana, USA, 1.45 Diferencne i
funkcionalne jednaˇcine
• Branislav Vidakovi´c Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA
1.9 Statistika
• Lea Popovi´c, Concordia University, Kanada 0.7 Sluˇcajni procesi
• Vladislav Tadi´c, University of Bristol, Engleska 0.7 Sluˇcajni procesi
8/48
DOBITNICI FIELDS-ove MEDALJE
Fields-ova medalja se dodeljuje na svetskim kongresima
9/48
Izvori:
http://www.mathunion.org/general/prizes/fields/prizewinners,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal
http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/
• Elon Lindenstrauss (2010), Prinston, SAD 2.2, Dinamiˇcki sistemi
• Wendelin Werner (2006), Paris-Sud, Francuska 3.8 Sluˇcajni procesi
• Vladimir Voevodsky (2002), Prinston, SAD 1.7 Algebarska geometrija
• Sir William Timothy Gowers (1998), Kembridˇz, Engleska 1.7 Funkcionalna
analiza
• Andrew Wiles (poˇcasna srebrna medalja 1998), Prinston, SAD 0.7
Teorija brojeva
ˇ
• Efim I. Zelmanov (1994), Univerzitet u Cikagu,
SAD 2.7 Algebra
• Jean-Christophe Yoccoz (1994), College de France, Pariz, Francuska
1.7 Dinamiˇcki sistemi, analiza na mnogostrukostima
• Shigefumi Mori (1990), Kyoto University, Japan 1.3 Algebarska geometrija
• ...
ˇ
• Lars Hormander (1962), Stockholm University, Svedska
2.9 Parcijalne
diferencijalne jednaˇcine
• Laurent Schwartz (1950), University of Nancy, Francuska 2.9 Funkcionalna
analiza, Sluˇcajni procesi
10/48
Terence Tao
University of California, Los Angeles
Field’s medal 2006, Madrid
Autor 9 knjiga (kao jedini autor)
70 koautora
Rod¯en 1975 godine GP = 13.9,
(Poseban talenat: sa 9 godina je sluˇsao univerzitetske kurseve, olimpijada
sa 10, master sa 16, Dr. sa 20.)
Tao,
*
*
*
*
Terence C.
Earliest Indexed Publication: 1996
Total Publications: 236
Total Citations: 5288
Main area: Partial differential equations
DOBITNICI ABELOVE NAGRADE
11/48
Za ˇ
zivotno delo, dodeljuje se svake godine
Izvori:
http://www.mathunion.org/general/prizes/abel-prize/prize-winners/
http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/
• Endre Szemer´edi (2012), Rutgers, SAD, 3.5 Additive number theory
and ergodic theory
• John Milnor (2011), Stony Brook University, SAD 2.2 Topologija,
diferencijalna geometrija i algebra (i Fields-ova medalja 1962)
• Mikhail Leonidovich Gromov (2009), New York University, SAD, 2.7
Diferencijalna geometrija
• Srinivasa S. R. Varadhan (2007), Courant Institute, SAD 2.6 Teorija
verovatno´ce
• Jean-Pierre Serre, College de France, Paris, Francuska (2003) 4 Topologija,
algebarska geometrija, teorija brojeva
ˇ
ZAKLJUCAK:
12/48
ˇ
• MNOGI OD NAVEDENIH NAUCNIKA
NE BI IMALI A1
KATEGORIJU SRPSKOG MINISTARSTVA, A NEKI NE
ˇ
BI UOPSTE
BILI NA PROJEKTIMA
• MNOGI OD NJIH PUBLIKUJU U NEADEKVATNIM
ˇ
ˇ
CASOPISIMA,
JER UMESTO DA BIRAJU CASOPIS
´
SA NAJVECIM
IF-OM, PUBLIKUJU TAMO GDE IM
ˇ
TO IZGLEDA LOGICNO
ˇ
• PRAKSOM IFOVANJA PORUCUJEMO
MLADIMA DA
IDU TAMO GDE TOGA NEMA
ˇ
ˇ
• PRAKSOM IFOVANJA UNISTAVAMO
NE SAMO NAUCNIKE
ˇ CASOPISE
ˇ
NEGO I NASE
• UVESTI KVALITATIVNE KRITERIJUME!
ˇ
• OGRANICITI
BROJ RADOVA KOJI SE PRIZNAJU KAO REZULTATI PROJEKATA!
ˇ
• TRAZITI
DA SVAKO MORA IMATI IZVESTAN PROCENAT SAMOSTALNIH RADOVA!
NAJNOVIJA VEST
ˇ
• 17 januar 2013: Clanak
u ˇcasopisu NATURE (IF=36.235/
Multidisciplinary Sciences)
• Hronologija dogad¯aja
INS: Nature-2013-01-17.pdf [3]
13/48
Mathematicians aim to take publishers out of publishing : Nature News & Comment
http://www.nature.com/news/mathematicians-aim-to-take-publishers-out-of-publishing-1.12243
NATURE | NEWS
Episciences Project to launch series of community-run, open-access journals.
Richard Van Noorden
17 January 2013
1 of 6
Corrected: 17 January 2013
1/26/2013 2:46 PM
Mathematicians aim to take publishers out of publishing : Nature News & Comment
http://www.nature.com/news/mathematicians-aim-to-take-publishers-out-of-publishing-1.12243
Mathematicians plan to launch a series of free open-access journals that will host their peer-reviewed
articles on the preprint server arXiv. The project was publicly revealed yesterday in a blog post by Tim
Gowers, a Fields Medal winner and mathematician at the University of Cambridge, UK.
The initiative, called the Episciences Project, hopes to show that researchers can organize the peer
review and publication of their work at minimal cost, without involving commercial publishers.
“It’s a global vision of how the research community should work: we want to offer an alternative to
traditional mathematics journals,” says Jean-Pierre Demailly, a mathematician at the University of
Grenoble, France, who is a leader in the effort. Backed by funding from the French government, the
initiative may launch as early as April, he says.
Many mathematicians — and researchers in other fields — claim that they already do most of the work
involved in publishing their research. At no cost, they type up and format their own papers, post them to
online servers, join journal editorial boards and review the work of their peers. By creating journals that
Jean-Pierre Demailly is a leader in an effort to
publish links to peer-reviewed work on servers such as arXiv, Demailly says, the community could run
create a researcher-run publishing system.
its own publishing system. The extra expense involved would be the cost of maintaining websites and
computer equipment, he says.
That cost is not small, but it could eventually be provided in part by the journals' users. The arXiv server, for example, costs about US$826,000 a year to
run, and is funded by the Cornell University Library in Ithaca, New York; the Simons Foundation in New York and institutional members.
Demailly says that he first thought of open-access electronic journals that overlay arXiv eight years ago, but the
Related stories
concept became a reality only last June, when he was contacted by the Centre for Direct Scientific Communication
(CCSD), based in Villeurbanne, France. The CCSD, a unit of the French National Centre for Scientific Research,
develops open-access repositories such as the multidisciplinary archive HAL, which mirrors the arXiv site.
For the Episciences Project, the CCSD plans to create a publishing platform that will support online peer-reviewed
journals. Each journal, or ‘epijournal’, would have its own editor and editorial board, and authors could submit their
2 of 6
1/26/2013 2:46 PM
Mathematicians aim to take publishers out of publishing : Nature News & Comment
http://www.nature.com/news/mathematicians-aim-to-take-publishers-out-of-publishing-1.12243
Open-access
deal
for
arXiv-posted papers to their journal of choice. The journal would then organize peer review, perhaps using workflow software provided
by the
CCSD.
Peer-reviewed papers would be posted on arXiv alongside their un-reviewed versions. A central committee (led by
particle physics
Demailly) would manage new journal candidates and make recommendations on paper formatting, but each journal
Journal offers flat fee for
would be free to set its own policies (including whether to charge for publication).
‘all you can publish’
Elsevier boycott gathers
Gowers plans to start a journal in the interdisciplinary field of additive combinatorics; Demailly would not say what other
pace
early epijournals might be. Gowers has strong views on shaking up research publishing — last year, he kick-started a
boycott of the Dutch publishing giant Elsevier (see also Nature’s profile of Gowers).
More related stories
The idea of overlaying arXiv is not new: some mathematics journals tried it in the early 2000s but scrapped the idea because libraries began dropping
print subscriptions, says Demailly. Meanwhile, there are already some free, community-organized mathematics journals, such as Documenta
Mathematica, funded by the German Mathematical Society. “They are doing things on their own with a small website; we will have a global platform
capable of drastically reducing an individual journal’s administration costs,” Demailly says.
Demailly says that he expects to adjust the concept with feedback from the mathematics community. “If people want larger reviews linked to papers, or
the possibility of online comments and blogs, we can offer this with only minor changes to the platform,” he says. At the moment, the model's success or
failure hinges on buy-in from mathematicians — but the involvement of Gowers and other prominent mathematicians, such as Terence Tao of the
University of California, Los Angeles, may help to build support.
Nature
doi:10.1038/nature.2013.12243
Corrections
Corrected: An earlier version of this story misstated the annual cost of the arXiv as $200,000 instead of $826,000. This has now been corrected.
Related stories and links
From nature.com
3 of 6
1/26/2013 2:46 PM
http://www.infodocket.com/2013/01/23
The Episciences Project: A New Open Access Initiative From the Mathematics Community
Last week Tim Gowers, Cambridge University mathematician and open
access advocate who led the recent boycott of Elsevier, announced an exciting new open access initiative for mathematicians on his blog.
The project, called the Episciences Project, will make it super quick
and easy to set up open access journals called epijournals. Epijournals are
electronic journals that link to pre-prints of academic journals held on arXiv
servers. The articles collected in these journals will have gone through the
same editorial processes and peer review that traditional journal articles
have. However, in epijournals these articles are not formatted or typeset
and, therefore, cost almost nothing to produce.
All costs associated with site maintenance will be covered by the Centre
pour la Communication Scientifique Directe (CCSD) in collaboration with
the Institut Fourier at Grenoble University leaving the scientific community
free to run its own publishing system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
.
Centre_pour_la_communication_scientifique_directe
The Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe (CCSD) is a
French organization of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
(CNRS) devoted to the development of the open access repositories Hal,
TEL and MediHal, and the web platform SciencesConf.org. It is involved
in the international open access movement.
17/48
POZIV NA BOJKOT ELSEVIER-a
18/48
13231 nauˇ
cnika iz SVIH OBLASTI je potpisalo
peticiju na sajtu (zakljuˇ
cno sa 31. januarom 2013)
http://thecostofknowledge.com/
• Zbog velike cene ˇcasopisa
• Dobijaju besplatno najvaˇznije komponente: Autore, urednike, recenzente, fajl sa radom
• Autori se moraju odre´ci autorskih prava pre prihvatanja
rada
• Sve ovo se odnosi i na sve ostale komercijalne izdavaˇce
• **Vrhunski ˇcasopisi-grabljivice sa slabom recenzijom, namernim
ubacivanjem slabih radova koji ´ce se citirati kako bi pove´cali
IF i sliˇcnim dosetkama
• **Vrhunski gafovi su ve´c pomenuti.
19/48
Scott Aaronson
MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab
won’t publish,
won’t referee,
won’t do editorial work,
I’ve been boycotting Elsevier and most other commercial publishers
since 2004, and am thrilled to see this movement picking up momentum
Jimenez Ballesta A.E.
Universidad Polite’cnica de Cartagena - Engineering and Technology
* won’t do editorial work
Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner
Center for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University - Socia
* won’t publish
* won’t referee
* won’t do editorial work
20/48
Patrick Akerley
Universite de Moncton, Canada, Mathematics graduate - Mathematics
won’t referee,
Good job!! Private companies taking advantage of human knowledge,
what a shame.
Susanne Maass
Bremen University, Sociotechnical Systems Design and Gender - Comput
* won’t publish
* won’t referee
* won’t do editorial work
INS: Cost-of-knowledge.pdf [7]
THE COST OF KNOWLEDGE
This is an attempt to describe some of the background to the current boycott of Elsevier by many
mathematicians (and other academics) at http://thecostofknowledge.com, and to present some of the
issues that confront the boycott movement. Although the movement is anything but monolithic, we believe
that the points we make here will resonate with many of the signatories to the boycott.
The role of journals (1): dissemination of research. The role of journals in professional mathematics
has been under discussion for some time now (see, for example, [10], [4], [11], [12], [1], [9], [13], [2]).
Traditionally, while journals served several purposes, their primary purpose was the dissemination of
research papers. The journal publishers were charging for the cost of typesetting (not a trivial matter in
general before the advent of electronic typesetting, and particularly non-trivial for mathematics), the cost of
physically publishing copies of the journals, and the cost of distributing the journals to subscribers (primarily
academic libraries).
The editorial board of a journal is a group of professional mathematicians. Their editorial work is
undertaken as part of their scholarly duties, and so is paid for by their employer, typically a university. Thus,
from the publisher’s viewpoint the editors are volunteers.1 When a paper is submitted to the journal, by an
author who is again typically a university-employed mathematician, the editors select the referee or referees
for the paper, evaluate the referees’ reports, decide whether or not to accept the submission, and organize
the submitted papers into volumes. These are passed on to the publisher, who then undertakes the job of
actually publishing them. The publisher supplies some administrative assistance in handling the papers, as
well as some copy-editing assistance, which is often quite minor but sometimes more substantial. The referees
are again volunteers from the point of view of the publisher: as with editing, refereeing is regarded as part of
the service component of a mathematician’s academic work. Authors are not paid by the publishers for their
published papers, although they are usually asked to sign over the copyright to the publisher.
This system made sense when the publishing and dissemination of papers was a difficult and expensive
undertaking. Publishers supplied a valuable service in this regard, for which they were paid by subscribers to
the journals, which were mainly academic libraries. The academic institutions whose libraries subscribe to
mathematics journals are broadly speaking the same institutions that employ the mathematicians who are
writing for, refereeing for, and editing the journals. Therefore, the cost of the whole process of producing
research papers is borne by these institutions (and the outside entities that partially fund them, such as the
National Science Foundation in the United States): they pay for their academic mathematician employees to
do research and to organize the publications of the results of their research in journals; and then (through
their libraries) they pay the publishers to disseminate these results among all the world’s mathematicians.
Since these institutions employ research faculty in order to foster research, it certainly used to make sense
for them to pay for the dissemination of this research as well. After all, the sharing of scientific ideas and
research results is unquestionably a key component for making progress in science.
Now, however, the world has changed in significant ways. Authors typeset their own papers, using
electronic typesetting. Publishing and distribution costs are not as great as they once were. And most
importantly, dissemination of scientific ideas no longer takes place via the physical distribution of journal
volumes. Rather, it takes place mainly electronically. While this means of dissemination is not free, it is
much less expensive, and much of it happens quite independently of mathematical journals.
In conclusion, the cost of journal publishing has gone down because the cost of typesetting has been
shifted from publishers to authors and the cost of publishing and distribution is significantly lower than it
used to be. By contrast, the amount of money being spent by university libraries on journals seems to be
growing with no end in sight. Why do mathematicians contribute all this volunteer labor, and their employers
pay all this money, for a service whose value no longer justifies its cost?
The role of journals (2): peer review and professional evaluation. There are some important
reasons that mathematicians haven’t just abandoned journal publishing. In particular, peer review plays an
essential role in ensuring the correctness and readability of mathematical papers, and publishing papers in
research journals is the main way of achieving professional recognition. Furthermore, not all journals count
1 The
editor in chief of a journal sometimes receives modest compensation from the publisher.
1
equally from this point of view: journals are (loosely) ranked, so that publications in top journals will often
count more than publications in lower ranked ones. Professional mathematicians typically have a good sense
of the relative prestige of the journals that publish papers in their area, and they will usually submit a paper
to the highest ranked journal that they judge is likely to accept and publish it.
Because of this evaluative aspect of traditional journal publishing, the problem of switching to a different
model is much more difficult than it might appear at first. For example, it is not easy just to begin a new
journal (even an electronic one, which avoids the difficulties of printing and distribution), since mathematicians
may not want to publish in it, preferring to submit to journals with known reputations. Secondly, although
the reputation of various journals has been created through the efforts of the authors, referees, and editors
who have worked (at no cost to the publishers) on it over the years, in many cases the name of the journal is
owned by the publisher, making it difficult for the mathematical community to separate this valuable object
that they have constructed from its present publisher.
The role of Elsevier. Elsevier, Springer, and a number of other commercial publishers (many of them
large companies but less significant for their mathematics publishing, e.g., Wiley) all exploit our volunteer
labor to extract very large profits from the academic community. They supply some value in the process, but
nothing like enough to justify their prices.
Among these publishers, Elsevier may not be the most expensive, but in the light of other factors, such as
scandals, lawsuits, lobbying, etc. (discussed further below), we consider them a good initial focus for our
discontent. A boycott should be substantial enough to be meaningful, but not so broad that the choice of
targets becomes controversial or the boycott becomes an unmanageable burden. Refusing to submit papers
to all overpriced publishers is a reasonable further step, which some of us have taken, but the focus of this
boycott is on Elsevier because of the widespread feeling among mathematicians that they are the worst
offender.
Let us begin with the issue of journal costs. Unfortunately, it is difficult to make cost comparisons:
journals differ greatly in quality, in number of pages per volume, and even in amount of text per page. As
measured by list prices, Elsevier mathematics journals are amongst the most expensive. For instance, in the
AMS mathematics journal price survey at http://www.ams.org/membership/mem-journal-survey, seven
of the ten most expensive journals (by 2007 volume list price2 ) were published by Elsevier. However, that
is primarily because Elsevier publishes the largest volumes. Price per page is a more meaningful measure
that can be easily computed. By this standard, Elsevier is certainly not the worst publisher, but its prices
do on the face of it look very high. The Annals of Mathematics, published by Princeton University Press,
is one of the absolute top mathematics journals and quite affordably priced: $0.13/page as of 2007. By
contrast, ten Elsevier journals3 cost $1.30/page or more; they and three others cost more per page than any
journal published by a university press or learned society. For comparison, three other top journals competing
with the Annals are Acta Mathematica, published by the Institut Mittag Leffler for $0.65/page, Journal of
the American Mathematical Society, published by the American Mathematical Society for $0.24/page, and
Inventiones Mathematicae, published by Springer for $1.21/page. Note that none of Elsevier’s mathematics
journals is generally considered comparable in quality to these journals.
However, there is an additional aspect which makes it hard to compute the true cost of mathematics
journals. This is the widespread practice among large commercial publishers of “bundling” journals, which
allows libraries to subscribe to large numbers of journals in order to avoid paying the exorbitant list prices for
the ones they need. Although this means that the average price libraries pay per journal is less than the list
prices might suggest, what really matters is the average price that they pay per journal (or page of journal)
that they actually want, which is hard to assess, but clearly higher. We would very much like to be able to
offer more concrete data regarding the actual costs to libraries of Elsevier journals compared with those of
Springer or other publishers. Unfortunately, this is difficult, because publishers often make it a contractual
requirement that their institutional customers should not disclose the financial details of their contracts. For
example, Elsevier sued Washington State University to try to prevent release of this information [3]. One
common consequence of these arrangements, though, is that in many cases a library cannot actually save any
2 All
3 not
prices are as of 2007 because both prices and page counts are easily available online.
including one that has since ceased publication
2
money by cancelling a few Elsevier journals: at best the money can sometimes be diverted to pay for other
Elsevier subscriptions.
One reason for focusing on Elsevier rather than, say, Springer is that Springer has had a rich and productive
history with the mathematical community. As well as journals, it has published important series of textbooks,
monographs, and lecture notes; one could perhaps regard the prices of its journals as a means of subsidizing
these other, less profitable, types of publications. Although all these types of publications have become less
important with the advent of the internet and the resulting electronic distribution of texts, the long and
continuing presence of Springer in the mathematical world has resulted in a store of goodwill being built up
in the mathematical community towards them. This store is being rapidly depleted,4 but has not yet reached
zero.
Elsevier does not have a comparable tradition of involvement in mathematics publishing. Many of the
mathematics journals that it publishes have been acquired comparatively recently as it has bought up other,
smaller publishers. Furthermore, in recent years it has been involved in various scandals regarding the
scientific content, or lack thereof, of its journals. One in particular involved the journal Chaos, Solitons &
Fractals, which, at the time the scandal broke in 2008–2009, was one of the highest impact factor5 mathematics
journals that Elsevier published. It turned out that the high impact factor was at least partly the result
of the journal publishing many papers full of mutual citations.6 Furthermore, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
published many papers that, in our professional judgement, have little or no scientific merit and should not
have been published in any reputable journal.
In another notorious episode, this time in medicine, for at least five years Elsevier “published a series of
sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like
journals and lacked the proper disclosures” [8].
Recently, Elsevier has lobbied for the Research Works Act [6], a proposed U.S. law that would undo the
National Institutes of Health’s public access policy, which guarantees public access to published research
papers based on NIH funding within twelve months of publication (to give publishers time to make a profit).
Although most lobbying occurs behind closed doors, Elsevier’s vocal support of this act shows their opposition
to a popular and effective open access policy.
These scandals, taken together with the bundling practices, exorbitant prices, and lobbying activities,
suggest a publisher motivated purely by profit, with no genuine interest in or commitment to mathematical
knowledge and the community of academic mathematicians that generates it. Of course, many Elsevier
employees are reasonable people doing their best to contribute to scholarly publishing, and we bear them
no ill will. However, the organization as a whole does not seem to have the interests of the mathematical
community at heart.
The boycott. Not surprisingly, many mathematicians have in recent years lost patience with being
involved in a system in which commercial publishers make profits based on the free labor of mathematicians
and subscription fees from their institutions’ libraries, for a service that has become largely unnecessary.7
Among all the commercial publishers, the behavior of Elsevier seemed to many to be the most egregious,
and a number of mathematicians had made personal commitments to avoid any involvement with Elsevier
journals.8
One of us (Timothy Gowers) decided that it might be useful to publicize his own personal boycott
of Elsevier, thus encouraging others to do the same. This led to the current boycott movement at http:
//thecostofknowledge.com, the success of which has far exceeded his initial expectations.
4 See for instance the recent petition to Springer by a number of French mathematicians and departments at http://
www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/petitions/index.php?petition=3.
5 Elsevier currently reports the five-year impact factor of this journal at 1.729. For sake of comparison, Advances in
Mathematics, also published by Elsevier, is reported as having a five-year impact factor of 1.575.
6 See [1] for more information on this and other troubling examples that show the limitations of bibliometric measures of
scholarly quality.
7 See http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/journal.pdf for Scott Aaronson’s scathing but all-too-true satirical description of the publishers’ business model.
8 Some journals were also successfully moved from Elsevier to other publishers; e.g., Annales Scientifiques de l’Ecole
´
Normale
Sup´
erieure, which until recent years was published by Elsevier, is now published by the Soci´
et´
e Math´
ematique de France.
3
Each participant in the boycott can choose which activities they intend to avoid: submitting to Elsevier
journals, refereeing for them, and serving on editorial boards. Of course, submitting papers and editing
journals are purely voluntary activities, but refereeing is a more subtle issue. The entire peer review system
depends on the availability of suitable referees, and its success is one of the great traditions of science:
refereeing is felt to be both a burden and an honor, and practically every member of the community willingly
takes part in it. However, while we respect and value this tradition, many of us do not wish to see our labor
used to support Elsevier’s business model.
What next? As suggested at the very beginning, different participants in the boycott have different goals,
both in the short and long term. Some people would like to see the journal system eliminated completely
and replaced by something else more adapted to the internet and the possibilities of electronic distribution.
Others see journals as continuing to play a role, but with commercial publishing being replaced by open
access models. Still others imagine a more modest change, in which commercial publishers are replaced
by non-profit entities such as professional societies (e.g., the American Mathematical Society, the London
Mathematical Society, and the Soci´et´e Math´ematique de France, all of which already publish a number of
journals) or university presses; in this way the value generated by the work of authors, referees, and editors
would be returned to the academic and scientific community. These goals need not be mutually exclusive:
the world of mathematics journals, like the world of mathematics itself, is large, and open access journals can
coexist with traditional journals, as well as with other, more novel means of dissemination and evaluation.
What all the signatories do agree on is that Elsevier is an exemplar of everything that is wrong with
the current system of commercial publication of mathematics journals, and we will no longer acquiesce to
Elsevier’s harvesting of the value of our and our colleagues’ work.
What future do we envisage for all the papers that would otherwise be published in Elsevier journals?
There are many other journals being published; perhaps they can pick up at least some of the slack. Many
successful new journals have been founded in recent years, too, including several that are electronic (thus
completely eliminating printing and physical distribution costs), and no doubt more will follow. Finally, we
hope that the mathematical community will be able to reclaim for itself some of the value that it has given
to Elsevier’s journals by moving some of these journals (in name, if possible, and otherwise in spirit9 ) from
Elsevier to other publishers.
None of these changes will be easy; editing a journal is hard work, and founding a new journal, or moving
and relaunching an existing journal, is even harder. But the alternative is to continue with the status
quo, in which Elsevier harvests ever larger profits from the work of us and our colleagues, and this is both
unsustainable and unacceptable.
Signed by:
Scott Aaronson
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Douglas N. Arnold
University of Minnesota
Artur Avila
IMPA and Institut de Math´ematiques de Jussieu
John Baez
University of California, Riverside
Folkmar Bornemann
Technische Universit¨
at M¨
unchen
Danny Calegari
Caltech/Cambridge University
Henry Cohn
Microsoft Research New England
9 One notable example is the August 10, 2006 resignation of the entire editorial board of the Elsevier journal Topology and
their founding of the Journal of Topology, owned by the London Mathematical Society.
4
Ingrid Daubechies
Duke University
Jordan Ellenberg
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Matthew Emerton
University of Chicago
Marie Farge
´
Ecole
Normale Sup´erieure Paris
David Gabai
Princeton University
Timothy Gowers
Cambridge University
Ben Green
Cambridge University
Martin Gr¨
otschel
Technische Universit¨
at Berlin
Michael Harris
Universit´e Paris-Diderot Paris 7
Fr´ed´eric H´elein
Institut de Math´ematiques de Jussieu
Rob Kirby
University of California, Berkeley
Vincent Lafforgue
CNRS and Universit´e d’Orl´eans
Gregory F. Lawler
University of Chicago
Randall J. LeVeque
University of Washington
L´
aszl´
o Lov´
asz
E¨
otv¨
os Lor´
and University
Peter J. Olver
University of Minnesota
Olof Sisask
Queen Mary, University of London
Terence Tao
University of California, Los Angeles
Richard Taylor
Institute for Advanced Study
Bernard Teissier
Institut de Math´ematiques de Jussieu
Burt Totaro
Cambridge University
Lloyd N. Trefethen
Oxford University
Takashi Tsuboi
University of Tokyo
5
Marie-France Vigneras
Institut de Math´ematiques de Jussieu
Wendelin Werner
Universit´e Paris-Sud
Amie Wilkinson
University of Chicago
G¨
unter M. Ziegler
Freie Universit¨
at Berlin
Appendix: recommendations for mathematicians. All mathematicians must decide for themselves
whether, or to what extent, they wish to participate in the boycott. Senior mathematicians who have signed
the boycott bear some responsibility towards junior colleagues who are forgoing the option of publishing in
Elsevier journals, and should do their best to help minimize any negative career consequences.
Whether or not you decide to join the boycott, there are some simple actions that everyone can take,
which seem to us to be uncontroversial:
1. Make sure that the final versions of all your papers, particularly new ones, are freely available online –
ideally both on the arXiv10 and on your home page.
2. If you are submitting a paper and there is a choice between an expensive journal and a cheap (or free)
journal of the same standard, then always submit to the cheap one.
References
[1] D. N. Arnold, Integrity under attack: the state of scholarly publishing, SIAM News 42 (2009), 2–3,
http://www.siam.org/news/news.php?id=1663.
[2] D. N. Arnold, More reasons to support the Elsevier boycott, International Mathematical Union Blog
on Mathematical Journals, 5 February 2012, http://blog.mathunion.org/journals/?tx_t3blog_
pi1[blogList][showUid]=30.
[3] T. Bergstrom, Big Deal
BundleContracts.html.
Contract
Project,
http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Journals/
[4] J. Birman, Scientific publishing: a mathematician’s viewpoint, Notices of the American Mathematical
Society 47 (2000), 770–774.
[5] Confederation of Open Access Repositories, Maximizing the visibility of research outputs: COAR call for action, 6 February 2012, http://www.coar-repositories.org/news/
coar-writes-open-letter-as-reaction-to-elseviers-practices/.
[6] M. Eisen, Plagiarist or puppet? US Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s reprehensible defense of Elsevier’s Research
Works Act, 13 January 2012, http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=846.
[7] Elsevier, Electronic preprints, accessed 2 February 2012, http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/
authorsview.authors/preprints.
[8] M. Hansen, Statement from Michael Hansen, CEO of Elsevier’s Health Sciences Division, regarding
Australia based sponsored journal practices between 2000 and 2005, 7 May 2009, http://www.elsevier.
com/wps/find/authored_newsitem.cws_home/companynews05_01203.
10 Elsevier’s electronic preprint policy [7] is unacceptable, because it explicitly does not allow authors to update their papers
on the arXiv to incorporate changes made during peer review. See, for example, [5]. When signing copyright transfer forms, we
recommend amending them (if necessary) to reserve the right to make the author’s final version of the text available free online
from servers such as the arXiv.
6
[9] C. Hutchins, What might be done about high prices of journals?, International Mathematical Union
Blog on Mathematical Journals, 12 July 2011, http://blog.mathunion.org/journals/?tx_t3blog_
pi1[blogList][showUid]=17.
[10] R. Kirby, Comparative prices of math journals, 1997, http://math.berkeley.edu/~kirby/journals.
html.
[11] R. Kirby, Fleeced?, Notices of the American Mathematical Society 51 (2004), 181.
[12] W. Neumann, What we can do about journal pricing, 2005, http://www.math.columbia.edu/~neumann/
journal.html.
[13] P. Olver, Journals in flux, Notices of the American Mathematical Society 58 (2011), 1124–1126.
7
EMS Ethics Committee - Code of Practice (2012)
.
Etiˇcki komitet Evropskog matematiˇckog druˇstva (EMS) je sredinom
2012. godine usvojio dokument u kome se propisuje ponaˇsanje svih uˇcesnika
u publikovanju nauˇcnih rezultata, kao i komisija za vrednovanje tih rezultata:
• Odgovornost autora
• Odgovornost urednika i izdavaˇca
• Odgovornost recenzenata
• Odgovornost komisija pri upotrebi IF u vrednovanju nauˇcnika
INS: COP-approved.pdf [8]
28/48
Code of Practice
Contents
Preamble
1
Code of Practice
2
Procedures
5
Preamble
The European Mathematical Society Ethics Committee was created by the Executive Committee
of the European Mathematical Society in the spring of 2010. The remit and the list of inaugural
members of the Committee are given at the end of this Code.
The first task of the Ethics Committee was to prepare a Code of Practice; this is the present
document. The Code was approved by the Executive Committee of the European Mathematical
Society on October 29, 2012, on the recommendation of the Council of the European Mathematical Society, and came into effect on November 1, 2012.
The European Mathematical Society recommends that this Code be adhered to by all mathematicians, editors, and publishers of mathematics, especially those based in Europe, but more
generally by all who are concerned with the publication, dissemination, and assessment of
mathematical research.
It is recommended that this Code of Practice be taken into account by officials of universities
and other institutions that employ European mathematicians when transgressions of the Code
by their employees are drawn to their attention.
The Code emphasises ethical aspects of publication, dissemination, and assessment of mathematics. The European Mathematical Society considers the successful open and transparent
publication and dissemination of mathematical research to be of the greatest importance for
the future of our subject. Unethical behaviour in publication and dissemination contaminates
and jeopardises the integrity and expansion of mathematics, and could have serious consequences for individuals.
The Code will be revised within three years, in the light of experience with cases analysed,
and after consideration of comments received.
The Ethics Committee is willing to consider cases involving allegations of unethical behaviour in the publishing of mathematics. The practices that the Committee intends to follow
are laid down in the section ‘Procedures’, given below.
1
Code of Practice
In this section, we set out a code of good practice and ethical behaviour in the publication,
dissemination, and assessment of mathematical research, and we specify what we consider to
be misconduct or unethical behaviour in this area.
Responsibilities of authors
1. Individual researchers and authors should understand and uphold high standards of ethical behaviour, particularly in relation to the publication and dissemination of their research. An aspect of good practice is the granting of proper credit, and the referencing
of the work of others, with appropriate bibliographic references.
It is important to note that it is not unethical to be mistaken in the attribution, or lack of
attribution, of results, provided that authors have carefully sought to determine whether
their claimed results are new, and provided that errors of attribution are corrected in a
timely and appropriate manner, as they are discovered or pointed out.
Publication of mathematical results as one’s own when the author has learned of the
results from others, for example through published material, lectures, conversation, or
earlier informal publication, constitutes plagiarism: this is a form of theft, is unethical,
and constitutes serious misconduct.
2. Each co-author should have contributed significantly to the research reported in any published work, and each person who contributed significantly to the relevant research should
be named as a co-author. Further, all named authors should accept joint responsibility
for any submitted manuscript and final publication. It is misconduct for one author to
submit and to publish joint research without the consent of his or her named co-authors.
3. Most mathematics is published by the submission of manuscripts to journals or conference
proceedings (including those that will appear only online), or by the writing of books. Our
guiding principle is that an author or authors who submit a work to editors or publishers
take responsibility for the integrity of what they have written, seeking carefully to ensure
that the mathematics presented is correct and that the work of others is appropriately
acknowledged.
4. In mathematics simultaneous or concurrent submission of a manuscript describing the
same research to more than one publication constitutes misconduct. Similarly, in mathematics the publication of the same research in more than one journal or outlet without
appropriate acknowledgement and citation constitutes misconduct.
5. Translations of published or unpublished works should always fully acknowledge the
source of the work.
6. Mathematicians should not make public claims of potential new theorems or the resolution
of particular mathematical problems unless they are able to provide full details in a timely
manner.
2
Responsibilities of editors and publishers
1. It is recommended that journals publishing mathematics should establish and conspicuously present their standards for ethical behaviour in publishing, and specify their responsibilities and the steps to be taken to investigate and respond to suspicions or accusations
of misconduct. Journals should respond to an author’s complaints with respect and due
process.
2. Editors should adhere to high standards of ethical treatment of all authors in arriving at
a responsible and objective decision about publication. An editor should withdraw from
any editorial duties that would involve a personal, commercial, or professional conflict
of interest. An editor should also avoid any misuse of their privileged position or of
information received as part of their editorial duties to influence the handling of their
own papers, or those of colleagues, students, or personal acquaintances. Certainly no
information received in confidence should ever be used in the editor’s own work.
3. It is recommended that journals publishing mathematics should make clear their policy and practices for handling submissions. In particular, an editor or publisher should
acknowledge receipt of a manuscript. A publisher should ensure that the progress of consideration of a submitted manuscript is monitored, and seek diligently to avoid excessive
delays in either the refereeing of a paper or the decision process. The publisher must
obtain consent to publish either from one author acting on behalf of all authors, or from
all authors.
The date of submission of, and the date of any significant changes to, a manuscript should
be published; this is important, in particular, in cases of disputes concerning priority.
4. Publishers have an obligation to present mathematical papers and books in a clear and
precise format, and they should ensure that the mathematical symbols, words, and sentences that are used in the published work are clear and are not a barrier to understanding. It is misconduct on the part of publishers merely to reproduce without improvement
submitted manuscripts that are badly written or presented.
5. Editors and publishers should consider carefully and make objective judgements about
the acceptance of submitted manuscripts. Normally this will be on the basis of reports
from appropriate referees, but the Committee recognises that it will sometimes be clear
to editors that a submitted manuscript is considerably below the standards of the journal,
or not in an appropriate subject area, and can therefore be rejected without submission
to referees; in this case, the authors should be courteously informed of this rejection in a
timely and reasoned manner.
6. The editors should inform potential authors of decisions taken in a courteous and timely
manner, always passing on constructive criticism and information provided by the referees.
Editors may decide that it is appropriate that certain comments provided by the referees
should be confidential to the Editorial Board, and not passed on verbatim to the authors.
7. An author may communicate to the editors the information that a mathematical statement or an attribution in his or her published article is incorrect. In the case where
3
this information is significant, it is recommended that the editors publish a correction or
retraction, preferably written by the original author.
8. In some cases, it may be pointed out to the editors by another person that certain statements or attributions in an article appear to be incorrect. In these cases, the editors
should consider the comments carefully and react in a proportionate manner; when appropriate, they should insist that the authors write a correction or retraction.
9. In rare cases, the editors may become convinced that parts of a work that they have
published have been plagiarised from another source. In these cases, the editors should
request the authors to submit for publication a substantial retraction; if this is not forthcoming, the editors themselves should publish a statement giving details of the plagiarism
involved.
10. Many articles are first published on the journal web site. It may become apparent that
an article so published contains mathematical errors, incorrect attributions, or has been
plagiarised in whole or in part. It is recommended that publishers retain the original
article for the historical record, but that they indicate by addition at a later specific date
appropriate corrections, as they would for a printed article. In extreme cases, it may be
that the publishers should indicate that the article has been ‘withdrawn’ either at the
request of the authors or by a decision of the publishers; in this case, any subsequent
printed version should reflect this decision.
11. A publisher of journals or books should not list on any of its publications a person
as ‘editor’ or ‘editorial advisor’ or similar without full disclosure of this to the person
concerned and receipt of his or her explicit agreement. The name of any person who
resigns from such a position must quickly be removed from the displayed list.
12. Any person listed as editor or editorial advisor should be aware of, and content with, the
standards and editorial procedures and policies of the journal, and be willing to act in
extreme cases when it is clear that the publishers are not following this Code.
Responsibilities of referees
1. Referees should adhere to high standards of ethical treatment of all authors in arriving at
responsible and objective recommendations about the publication of material that they
assess. Referees should seek to validate the correctness, significance, novelty, and clarity
of a manuscript under consideration, and then report their findings to the editor in a
careful and constructive manner. Nevertheless, final responsibility for the published work
lies with the authors.
2. A person asked to accept the task of refereeing a paper may feel that there is a potential
personal or professional conflict of interest, for example, when he or she is asked to referee
a manuscript from a recent student, collaborator, or colleague. In such cases, the potential
referee should discuss with the editor any possible conflicts of interest, and continue to
act only with the agreement of the editor.
4
3. Once they have accepted the task of refereeing a manuscript, referees should seek to report
in a timely manner, taking into account the length of the manuscript and the requests of
the editors.
4. A referee should eschew the use of privileged information gleaned from a manuscript
under review.
5. A referee who suspects any element of plagiarism in a manuscript under consideration,
or any other unethical behaviour, should quickly report these concerns to the editor.
Responsibilities of users of bibliometric data
1. Whilst accepting that mathematical research is and should be evaluated by appropriate
authorities, and especially by those that fund mathematical research, the Committee
sees grave danger in the routine use of bibliometric and other related measures to assess
the alleged quality of mathematical research and the performance of individuals or small
groups of people.
2. It is irresponsible for institutions or committees assessing individuals for possible promotion or the award of a grant or distinction to base their decisions on automatic responses
to bibliometric data.
3. It is unethical to manipulate references within an article or to arrange the publication
of articles for the purpose of artificially influencing the bibliometric data, impact factors,
and citation counts that are generated.
4. It is unethical to include inappropriate citations of one’s own work or of the work of
particular colleagues or of articles in journals with which the author has a connection.
5. It is misconduct for publishers to advertise their own journals by the quotation of insecure
or partial or tendentious bibliometric data.
Procedures
The following procedures will guide the considerations of individual cases that are brought to
the attention of the Ethics Committee.
P1 The Committee will consider only cases that are formally submitted to it by persons
or bodies that are involved in claims of unethical behaviour. The Committee will not
consider cases submitted by those who have no standing in a dispute, and the Committee
will not itself seek out instances of apparent unethical behaviour.
The Committee may decline to act on any case that is brought to its attention. The
Committee will not reconsider a case after a decision has been made unless substantial
new information which could lead to a different decision is made available.
5
P2 Cases for consideration should be communicated to the Chairman of the Committee.
Although the Committee will not act until a formal complaint is lodged, earlier informal
enquiries may be addressed to the Chairman.
P3 The Committee expects that before submitting a case a complainant will have already
sought to address the issues involved and, in the case of published works, will have utilised
the procedure for dealing with ethical issues formulated by the publishers.
P4 The Committee will not consider any case in which formal legal proceedings have been
instigated, and may cease to consider a case if such proceedings are commenced. The
Committee will not consider any case that is a matter of direct dispute between a mathematician and the institution that employs that person.
P5 The normal procedure of the Committee when it receives a formal complaint will be as
follows.
First, the Committee will determine whether it is appropriate to consider the complaint
and whether a prima facie case exists.
If it does so determine, the Committee will then seek to discover the underlying facts
of a case. As part of this process, the Chairman will write privately to the accused
person or bodies, and invite them either to act quickly to accept the complaint and make
appropriate amends, or to explain to the Committee why they do not deem it appropriate
to act in this way.
In the latter case, or when the accused party does not respond, especially when accusations
of plagiarism are made, the Committee will normally ask some experts, each unconnected
to the various parties, to study the accusations and advise the Committee whether they
are justified. On receipt of this advice, the Committee will form a view on the merits of
the case, and will then communicate its findings privately to all parties.
The Committee expects that any party deemed to have acted unethically will make appropriate and timely amends.
P6 In the case where the party deemed to have acted unethically remains obdurate, and the
Committee is convinced that unethical behaviour has occurred, the Committee will make
a formal finding, which will be sent by the Chairman to the President of the European
Mathematical Society.
The President, after consultation with the Executive Committee, may communicate the
findings, for example by informing the Head of the Institution that employs the party
deemed to have acted unethically, the relevant Heads of Department of people involved,
relevant editors and publishers, as appropriate.
The European Mathematical Society may publicise the findings of the Ethics Committee
in a particular case.
P7 The Committee will report regularly on its activities and summarise its findings, without
identifying persons or institutions involved in specific cases, in the Newsletter of the
European Mathematical Society.
6
Members of the Ethics Committee will adhere to the following principles.
• Each member of the Committee will excuse himself or herself from the discussion of and
any participation in the decision concerning any case submitted to the Committee if they
have any conflict of interest (or anything that could give an appearance of a conflict of
interest) related to the submitted case. Such a Committee member should inform the
Chairman in advance, and then he or she will not receive any papers or information
related to the relevant case.
• All members of the Committee will keep all cases confidential until a decision has been
made public; all internal discussions and information received concerning individuals will
remain confidential.
Remit
The remit of the European Mathematical Society Ethics Committee was specified by the Executive Committee of the European Mathematical Society in Spring 2010, as follows.
The Ethics Committee will focus on unethical behaviour in mathematical publications. This
includes, for example, plagiarism, duplicate publication, inadequate citations, inflated self citations, dishonest refereeing, and other violations of the professional code. The Committee will
be responsible for the following three tasks:
1. To raise the awareness of the problem by preparing a code of practice.
2. To encourage journals and publishers to respond to allegations of unethical behaviour in
a conscientious way.
3. To provide a mechanism whereby researchers can ask the Committee to help them pursue
claims of unethical behaviour.
The Committee may take up any other relevant questions related to ethics in connection
with its work.
Committee
The initial membership of the European Mathematical Society Ethics Committee was as follows.
All members were appointed for three years, from mid-2010 to mid-2013. Members serve on the
Committee as individuals, and not as representatives of their institution, mathematical society,
or country.
Chairman: Arne Jensen (Aalborg Universitet, Denmark)
Vice-Chairman: H. Garth Dales (University of Lancaster, UK)
Executive Committee representative: 2010–2012: Igor Krichever (Columbia University, New
York, USA, and Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics, Moscow, Russia)
2013– Franco Brezzi (Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori, Pavia, Italy).
Members:
Jean-Paul Allouche (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and Universit´e Pierre et
Marie Curie, Paris, France)
7
Graziano Gentili (Universit`a di Firenze, Italy)
Radu Gologan (Academia Romˆan˘a de S¸tiint¸e, Bucure¸sti, Romania)
Christine Jacob (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Jouy-en-Josas, France)
Adolfo Quir´os (Universidad Aut´onoma de Madrid, Spain)
Tomaˇz Pisanski (Univerza v Ljubljani, Slovenia)
Tatiana Shaposhnikova (Link¨opings Universitet, Sweden)
8
OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS (OAJ) ?
37/48
• U Nemaˇckoj ve´c sada Ministarstvo finansira samo radove objavljene
po ”open access” modelu (Izvor: Vladislav B., privatna komunikacija)
• Da li ´ce naˇse Ministarstvo mo´ci da se prilagodi promeni centra?
• Da li ´ce naˇsi ˇcasopisi doˇziveti novu najezdu loˇsih matematiˇcara iz svih
zemalja?
• Da li ´ce ikada neko ko odluˇcuje pogledati knjigu ili rad nekog naˇseg
nauˇcnika na liˇcnoj Web strani i re´ci ”uau, ovo je zaista dobro!”
• Springer i Elsevier to rade....
• Da li ´ce Ministarstvo pristati da finansira elektronske ˇcasopise?
• Godiˇsnji troˇskovi ArXiv-a su 800 000++ dolara!
• Kakve ´ce nam promene sve to doneti i da li smo spremni ili samo
ˇcekamo da nas situacija natera?
• Ako ˇzelimo da budemo DEO SVETA moramo mnoge stvari da promenimo
pre nego ˇsto ih svi ostali promene.
• Srbija bi trebalo da ima predstavnike u IMU i EMS!
• ”Ako ˇzelimo da budemo med¯u prvima ne smemo da budemo med¯u
poslednjima!”
ˇ
AADM - NEKAD I SAD, STA
DALjE?
• AADM - crtice
• Tipiˇ
cno za Srbiju: kako nas vide
• Balkansko prokletstvo: Moramo biti mnogo bolji da bismo
bili dobri.
• Zaˇ
sto bi doma´
cim ˇ
casopisima bilo bolje bez rangiranja
istraˇ
zivaˇ
ca po impakt faktoru ˇ
casopisa?
• Uredniˇ
cki rad: moj predlog Ministarstvu
• Zatvoriti se ili ostati otvoren?
INS: Predlog Ministarstvu.pdf [2]
INS: Prilogpredloga.pdf [1]
38/48
Министарству просвете и науке Републике Србије Предмет: Предлог измене Правилника о вредновању научноистраживачких резултата истраживача На основу позива на јавну расправу објављеног на сајту Министарства http://www.mpn.gov.rs , предлажем измену текста Правилника у делу који се односи на табелу на странама 3132 у Прилогу 3 (ВРСТА И КВАНТИФИКАЦИЈА ИНДИВИДУАЛНИХ
НАУЧНОИСТРАЖИВАЧКИХ РЕЗУЛТАТА ) и то у делу који се односи на вредновање
уређивања монографија, часописа и осталих публикација. У поменутој табели се
наводи број поена којим се вреднују следеће активности:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Уређивање тематског зборника лексикографске или картографске публикације водећег међународног значаја Уређивање истакнутог научног научног часописа на годишњем нивоу (гост уредник) 3 Уређивање међународног научног часописа 2 Уређивање зборника саопштења међународног научног скупа Уређивање тематског зборника, лексикографске или картографске публикације водећег националног значаја Уређивање тематског зборника, лексикографске или картографске публикације националног значаја Уређивање водећег научног часописа националног значаја (на годишњем нивоу) Уређивање научног часописа националног значаја (на годишњем нивоу) Уређивање зборника саопштења скупа националног значаја Предлажем да се наведене активности избришу из табеле и да се уместо тога убаци текст којим би се формулисало следеће правило: Уређивање у својству уредника (Edited by, Editor, Editor in Chief, Guest editor) публикације у било којој од категорија које су квантитативно вредноване у претходном тексту , вреднује се са бројем поена који је једнак двоструком броју поена којим се вреднује ауторски рад објављен у публикацији (на нивоу једног броја –све ске за периодичне публикације). Уредник публикације не добија додатне поене на основу ауторства радова у истој публикацији, као ни евентуални остали коаутори. Уколико часопис или публикација има више уредника који су финансирани од стране Министарства, они деле поене за уређивање по међусобном договору за сваки број. Ако је један истраживач ангажован као уредник у више часописа, поени за уређивање се признају само за један од њих (по избору истраживача), а поени за објављене радове се не додељују ни за један од тих часописа. О Б Р А З Л О Ж Е Њ Е У текућој верзији правилника, уређивање монографија и часописа није вредновано адекватно сложености и тежини посла уређивања. На пример, уредник монографије водећег међународног значаја добија за тај посао 3 поена, док сваки аутор у истој монографији добија 16 поена! Слична диспропорција постоји у периодичним публикацијама, на пример, аутор у међународном часопису добија од 3 до 10 поена, зависно од под‐класификације, док уредник добија само 2 поена, или 3 ако је гост‐
уредник истакнутог међународног часописа (зашто само гост, кад имамо не само истакнуте него и врхунске међународне часописе чији редовни уредници учествују на пројектима Министарства ?). Очигледно је да су аутори овог предлога унапред рачунали на то да ће уредници објављивати своје радове у публикацијама које уређују – зашто не би то радили кад не морају никог да питају за дозволу? Потписани предлагач, који је и сам главни уредник врхунског међународног часописа, сматра да Министарство својим правилником мора да обезвреди пласирање својих сопствених радова у свом часопису од стране уредника, како би онемогућило потенцијалне злоупотребе и обезбедило услове за подједнак третман свих аутора. Осим тога, уредник који не објављује своје радове у свом часопису има сваком погледу већи ауторитет и интегритет да одлучује о радовима својих колега. С друге стране, Министарство би требало да цени огроман и незахвалан посао уређивања и да мотивише истраживаче да га се прихвате. Ни у много већим срединама него што је наша није лако наћи квалификоване људе који би уз то још и желели да раде тај посао. На крају, није сувишно навести два примера. Истраживач који се појављује у улози едитора неке монографије или зборника радова, добио би исти број поена као да је у тој публикацији објавио два рада. Уредник часописа који има две свеске годишње, добио би у току године за свој рад исти број поена као да је у свом часопису објавио 4 рада. При оваквом бодовању, уредницима се пружа могућност да својим уређивачким радом остваре свој статус на пројектима министарства са бројем поена који је пропорционалан статусу публикације коју уређују, а при томе им Министарство не признаје (у сврху бодовања) радове које објављују у свом часопису док су на функцији уредника. Уколико су потребна додатна објашњења у вези са наведеним предлогом, молим да ме контактирате. Др. Милан Меркле, професор универзитета Главни уредник часописа Applicable Analysis and Discrete Mathematics у издању Београдског универзитета (категорија М21) [email protected] Прилог 3.
ВРСТА И КВАНТИФИКАЦИЈА ИНДИВИДУАЛНИХ
НАУЧНОИСТРАЖИВАЧКИХ РЕЗУЛТАТА
Напомена – науке су разврстане на следећи начин:
(2) техничко-технолошке и биотехничке
(4) хуманистичке
Назив групе
резултата
Монографије,
монографске
студије,
тематски
зборници,
лескикографс
ке и
картографске
публикације
међународног
значаја
Радови
објављени у
научним
часописима
међународног
значаја;
научна
критика;
уређивање
часописа
Ознак
а
групе
резулт
ата
M10
Вредност
резултата K
Врста резултата
Истакнута монографија међународног
значаја
Монографија међународног значаја
Монографска студија/поглавље у књизи
М11 или рад у тематском зборнику
водећег међународног значаја
Монографска студија/поглавље у
књизи М12 или рад у тематском
зборнику међународног значаја
Лексикографска јединица или карта у
научној публикацији водећег
међународног значаја
Лексикографска јединица или карта у
публикацији међународног значаја
Уређивање тематског зборника
лексикографске или картографске
публикације водећег међународног
значаја
Уређивање тематског зборника,
лексикографске или картографске
публикације међународног значаја
Рад у врхунском међународном часопису
Рад у истакнутом међународном часопису
M20
(1) природно-математичке и медицинске
(3) друштвене
Рад у међународном часопису
Рад у часопису међународног значаја
верификованог посебном одлуком
Научна критика и полемика у истакнутом
међународном часопису
М
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
M11
16
16
16
16
M12
12
12
12
12
M13
8
8
8
8
M14
4
4
5
5
M15
3
3
3
3
M16
2
2
2
2
M17
3
3
3
3
M18
2
2
2
2
10
8
10
8
10
8
10
8
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
М21 а
М21
M22
М22 б
M23
3
3
4
4
M24
2
2
4
4
M25
1,5
1,5
1,5
1,5
OAJ U SRBIJI:
´
MOGUCNOST
ILI UTOPIJA?
• Za sada smo otvoreni, ˇ
sta dalje?
• Otvorenost i transparentnost
• Finansiranje urednika i redakcije
42/48
ˇ
ZA SADA SMO OTVORENI, STA
DALJE?
43/48
ˇ
• Casopis
mora da se menja u skladu sa zahtevima vremena u kome
postoji. Da bi se to dogodilo prihodi moraju biti ve´ci od troˇskova.
ˇ
• Casopisi
AMS-a su uglavnom zatvoreni, osim ”Notices” i ”Bulletin”(IF=2.321)
ˇ
koji su (bezuslovno) dostupni online. Clanstvo
u AMS-u za Srbiju
koˇsta godiˇsnje 16 US dolara, i za to se dobija jedan od dva pomenuta
ˇcasopisa u ˇstampanom obliku.
ˇ
• Casopisi
Springer-a i Elsevier-a su uglavnom zatvoreni, sa tendencijom
(Springer uglavnom) da imaju ”open-access” opciju za svaki prihva´ceni
rad: autor pla´ca objavljivanje svog rada (od 600 do 1200 eura po
radu, zavisno od ˇcasopisa). Rad je onda bezuslovno dostupan na sajtu
izdavaˇca i ostalim servisima. Pla´canje preko projekata. Neki ˇcasopisi
imaju opciju da institucija plati pauˇsalnu godiˇsnju ˇclanarinu, ˇcime su
istraˇzivaˇci iz ovih institucija oslobod¯eni pla´canja. Ne verujem da ´ce u
Srbiji neko da odvoji novac za tu svrhu u dogledno vreme.
• Dosta drugih (uglavnom izdavaˇca u usponu - grabljivaca) se pojavljuju
sa totalno ”Open access” ˇcasopisima, i svi traˇze dobre nadoknade od
autora ili institucija. Na primer, Abstract and Applied Analysis (IF=
1.318), izdavaˇc Hindawi.
• Bez sumnje, veoma unosan biznis.
• Zaˇsto bi dobar autor za dobar rad platio da se objavi?
• Balkansko prokletstvo: moramo biti mnogo boljin da bismo bili dobri.
• Zatvaranje donosi nove poslove i nove troˇskove, koje tek nema ko da
pokrije.
OTVORENOST I TRANSPARENTNOST
ˇ
• Zaˇsto treba da imamo ˇcasopise? Za Sangajsku
listu? Da dobijemo
mo´c? Za liˇcni uspon i prosperitet? Da moˇzemo da plasiramo svoje
radove i radove svojih saradnika bez mere i ograniˇcanja? Za ˇsta?
• Dobar ˇcasopis ne moˇze dugoroˇcno da opstane na amaterskoj bazi i
dobrovoljnom radu zarad opˇstih intresa.
• Da bi bilo ko radio za dobrobit ˇcasopisa (podrazumevaj´ci da ima kvalifikacije) mora da ima odgovaraju´cu motivaciju i (pozitivan i legitiman)
intres.
ˇ je bio moj intres?
• Sta
• Kako je to u svetu ?
• A kako je kod nas ? Izbor izmed¯u bavljenja ˇcasopisom i privatnog posla
na kome se zaradd¯uje?
• Otvoreni ˇcasopis koji nema prihoda sa strane, otvoren je u svakom
mogu´cem pogledu. Da li to moˇze da prod¯e u zemlji Srbiji?
44/48
FINANSIRANJE UREDNIKA I REDAKCIJE
• Da bi ˇcasopis bio otvoren (OAJ), bez napla´civanja autorima, i bez
prihoda od prodaje ˇstampane verzije, neophodan uslov je stabilno
finansiranje.
• A ˇsta ´cemo sa ostalim ˇcasopisima?? Lako bismo za vas, ali nemamo
para za sve!
• Odrˇzavanje sajta, online sistem za autore, baza podataka o radovima,
jeziˇcke korekcije, priprema radova
• Ako nije motivisan na drugi naˇcin, ˇcovek ´ce da radi jedino ako mu se
dozvoli da objavljuje svoje radove ”sa popustom”.
45/48
ˇ
ZAKLJUCAK
I PREDLOZI -1/3:
• Urednici ˇcasopisa trebalo bi da dobijaju naknadu (u iznosu
od 2 rada u svakoj svesci ˇcasopisa koji ured¯uju ili na neki
drugi naˇcin), s tim da im se ne priznaju radovi koje eventualno objave u svom ˇcasopisu.
• Ministarstvo mora da prizna realne troˇskove ured¯ivanja
”open access” ˇcasopisa.
• Treba uvesti posebne projekte na kojima bi konkurisali
”open access” ˇcasopisi preko svojih glavnih urednika. Ovi
projekti bi za rezultat mogli da imaju i delimiˇcno kvantitativne bibliografske kriterijume (pozicija na SCI listi) ali
moraju imati i kvalitativne rezultate koji bi mogli biti globalno definisani (transparentnost procesa ocenjivanja radova,
kvalitet recenzenata, kvalitet autora, znaˇcajnost oblasti koje
objavljuju itd.) Projekti bi se mogli uklopiti u ˇsemu ostalih projekata, uˇcesnici projekta bi bili urednici/tehniˇcki
saradnici u ˇcasopisu, a materijalni troˇskovi bi bili realni
troˇ
skovi odrˇ
zavanja ˇ
casopisa.
• Trebalo bi formirati konzorcijum ujedinjenih izdavaˇca svih
takvih ˇcasopisa – svi bi imali korist od toga, ako bi iza nas
stajali svi kojima matematika neˇsto znaˇci na ovim prostorima. . .
46/48
ˇ
ZAKLJUCAK
I PREDLOZI-2/3:
47/48
• Impakt faktor ˇcasopisa ne treba da se koristi kao merilo
vrednosti radova publikovanih u tom ˇcasopisu.
• Treba napraviti listu matematiˇckih ˇcasopisa koji se (potencijalno podjednako) priznaju u smislu vrednovanja rezultata. Alternativno, mogu se napraviti dve liste: A− prestiˇzni
i B− regularni. Liste se ne menjaju u jednom projektnom
ciklusu.
ˇ
• Clanovi
komisije za ocenjivanje istraˇzivaˇca moraju biti van
konkurencije i treba im dodeliti najviˇsu kategoriju bez obraˇcunavanja
njihovih stvarnih rezultata. Zauzvrat, ˇclanovi komisije morali
bi da osim sabiranja primene i veˇstine
kvalitativne analize radova gde bi kvantitet i impakt
faktor mogli biti samo delimiˇ
cno uzeti u obzir.
• S obzirom da je finansiranje istraˇzivaˇca preko projekata
Ministarstva prevashodno socijalna kategorija (pove´cava se
plata), potrebno je smanjiti detaljnost podele na kategorije:
2 kategorije, A i B u okviru kojih ´ce istraˇzivaˇci primati istu
naknadu za svoj rad. Podelu na kategorije vrˇsi komisija
prema prethodnoj taˇcki, bez numeriˇ
ckog algoritma.
• S obzirom na broj radova koje godiˇsnje objavljuju prestiˇzni
matematiˇcari u svetu, treba ograniˇciti broj radova na godiˇsnjem
nivou po istraˇzivaˇcu koji ´ce biti priznati kao rezultati projekata.
• U svakom projektnom ciklusu svaki istraˇzivaˇc mora imati
odred¯en procenat (npr. minimalno 20%) radova u kojima
je jedini autor.
ˇ
ZAKLJUCAK
I PREDLOZI-3/3:
48/48
• Uslov da svako mora da doktorira za 6 godina
ilu gubi posao doveo je do poplave loˇ
sih i laˇ
znih
doktorata!
∗ ∗ ∗ Ukinuti uslov da se MORA doktorirati za
6 godina ILI:
∗ ∗ ∗ Ukinuti zaposlenje novim asistentima i davati im stipendiju bez radne knjiˇ
zice
• Uslov da svaki redovni profesor mora imati monografiju ili udˇ
zbenik doveo je do poplave loˇ
sih
udˇ
zbenika i bezvrednih monografija!
∗ ∗ ∗ Ukinuti u potpunosti ovaj uslov jer niˇ
sta
dobro ne donosi.
INS: Kraj-i-dovidjenja.pdf
Download

- Applicable Analysis and Discrete Mathematics