Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Jonathan Pridham writes (private email):
Dear Domenico,
I’m definitely interested in being an editor - I’ve often found the nLab a helpful resource. One tentative suggestion I might make is to encourage original research papers by relaxing the initial submission criteria (to allow pdf files or arXiv links, say), on the understanding that final acceptance will be conditional on the author putting the manuscript in nLab format.
Thanks for the invitation,
Jon.
encourage original research papers by relaxing the initial submission criteria (to allow pdf files or arXiv links, say), on the understanding that final acceptance will be conditional on the author putting the manuscript in nLab format.
That sounds very reasonable. If this is what Mike was already suggesting over in the other thread, I apologize for not getting the point: what I think we should enforce is that the material ends up on the Lab. But of course the trouble of converting it need not be started with before the material is accepted.
I’m not sure if it was exactly what I was suggesting, but I’m happy with it as a conclusion.
Okay, would you mind editing Proceedings preparation (nlabmeta) accordingly? I am running out of time.
to keep things under control, let me try to fix a record of the current state of the editorial board:
tentatively confirmed: André Joyal, Tim Porter, Jonathan Pridham, Jim Stasheff, Gabriele Vezzosi
contacted: Carlos Simpson
possibly contacted by Zoran: Dmitry Kaledin
possibly contacted by Urs: David Ben-Zvi, Kevin Costello
possibly contacted by Urs: David Ben-Zvi, Kevin Costello
Yes, I haven’t yet, though, since I am busy. I’ll maybe wait for Carlos Simpson’s reply.
No answer from Kaledin yet.
Now that’s good news! Quite an impressive editorial board now. I would never have imagined that this would work out this way.
By email Carlos Simpson points out an Lab article that he had wished to cite properly in the past: geometric realization of simplicial topological spaces.
This appears as an ordinary url as citation [77] in his article.
So this would be a good test case: we should find a referee and promote this article to the Als!
Maybe David could include his unpublished proof with Danny Stevenson that good implies proper before we submit it to als.
Kaledin seems to be, like Toen, currently too busy. His thanks and wishes are below.
Dear Zoran,
Thank you for the invitation! This sure looks like a thing I should do; but I am afraid I will not be able to. I don’t nearly have enough time these days. I actually almost never go to n-cat, too… Sorry! – and I wish you best of luck with this project.
Best regards, Dmitry
By, the way, did anybody try to contact/involve Denis-Charles Cisinski ?
Urs, 11: the link to geometric…does not work.
By, the way, did anybody try to contact/involve Denis-Charles Cisinski ?
As far as I know, not yet: the current status of the editorial board should be:
tentatively confirmed: André Joyal, Tim Porter, Jonathan Pridham, Carlos Simpson, Jim Stasheff, Gabriele Vezzosi
to be contacted by Urs: David Ben-Zvi, Kevin Costello
Any news?
Any news?
I haven’t contacted anyone yet. I am feeling the formation of the editorial board is getting ahead of the rest of the project. I would rather first complete the test-publication of geometric realization of simplicial topological spaces and of Tom’s article, if possible, such as to be able to point potential editors to examples of what it is we are talking about. I am afraid otherwise we risk having editors who will be quite surprised what they agreed to be editors of, once it gets started.
Do you have tenure yet, Tom? I don’t see an ethical problem on our end, under the special circumstances. But somebody may see a problem on that end. You may want to leave this publication off of your CV when applying for tenure, grants, etc. (On the other hand, your CV could mention your work on setting up the journal!)
I disagree with Toby (edit: that there should be doubt about listing it). Tom should list the location of the publication in his CV, provided the referees accept this. If not it should be listed as regular preprint. If somebody done some research, exposition or whatever it is a part of somebody CV, and it is impossible to look at listing somebody’s own research as unethical. The fact that sometimes people who publish are also in the editorial boards by itself means nothing, unless they influenced in biased way the decision by their editorial influence. Gelfand for example has lots of papers in his Funct. Anal. and its applications as well as many others. It is a different thing when somebody makes things biased by some action. But people can always check editorial boards, and people can list their involvment in boards in CV as well, making it easier to check.
Tom, since we want “transparent refereeing” on the Journal, I think we will have some kind of stamp on the final Journal version of your article (IF it will be accepted!) saying at least something like “Communicated by [Name of editor]” or the like, that will make clear that the article did go through genuine neutral refereeing that you didn’t influence in any way.
No, I don’t mean to talk about what looks bad, but what is bad. If you want people to give you grants in part because you wrote an article that was published in a journal that you helped to set up, then they might not want to treat that in the same way as publishing in another journal (that also isn’t listed in the impact indexes), so it would be unethical to list things in such a way that they did treat it in the same way.
But there’s an ‘if’ and a ‘might’ in there, so none of this may apply. I have a great deal of ignorance as to how much an agency would in fact care about this; in particular, any agency that relies on allegedly objective bean-counting statistics probably doesn’t have enough sophistication to notice. Based on Zoran’s comments, it looks like they probably wouldn’t care anyway. But if it turns out that they would, then leaving it off (or listing only the arXiv preprint) is one solution.
In any case, it’s not bad on our end.
1 to 25 of 25