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.
Does the name have to include “nLab” in it at all?
Does the name nLab have nCafe in it?
Does the name nForum have nLab in it?
Why should the Proceedings have nLab in it?
Why shouldn’t Proceedings have nForum in it?
I was even considering proposing the Proceedings be hosted on a forum like this instead of Instiki. The value of nForum has been grossly under appreciated in my opinion.
The nForum is more “journal like” then the nLab anyway. Or maybe we find an even better platform for publishing. As long as it supports itex2mml, hyperlinks, comments, and versioning, it would be sufficient and many platforms could fit the bill.
How about (only partly tongue in cheek) the completely boring and vanilla ’Journal of higher categorical mathematics’? If we need something ’respectable’ sounding…. :)
I’m not sure whether the journal ought to be regarded as “part of” the nLab; it might be better to regard it as an independent entity with strong ties. There is a reason for using the same platform that the nLab uses, however: easy linking and copying back and forth.
I agree with Urs that we should not look like we’re trying to hide the wiki-ness and otherwise novelty of this project. I’m not sure whether that necessarily requires keeping “nLab” in the name, it could be something like “The wiki journal of higher categorical mathematics” although that doesn’t really sound very euphonious to me. Maybe having “nLab” in the name is good.
Whether or not it explicitly contain the four characters ’nLab’, I do feel that it ought to contain the first of these! The n-Stuff is getting to be quite a well-known “brand” and we should regard that both as a positive thing and something to be exploited. If it is felt that the proposed journal should not be subservient to the nLab (which might be inferred if ’nLab’ is part of the name) but on an equal footing, then maybe there should be a parent ’nThing’ which has no particular existence in itself but serves to link all the nStuff. (As an initial - and probably daft - proposal, I tend to refer to everyone here as being part of the ’nGroup’). As for the proposed names, these could then be “X of the nGroup” rather than “nLab”.
Regarding the current list of names:
So my first choice is “Proceedings” and second is “Journal”.
Actually there are severals journals called “Annals of Something”, but I agrre with Andrew that
there is only one journal worthy of the name Annals and it feels presumptuous to use it
For the sake of completeness, here is the list of the Annals:
Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae
Annales de l’Institut Fourier
Annales de l’Inst. Henri Poincare’, (A,B,C)
Annales de Physique
Annales Polonici Mathematici
Annales Scientifiques de L’Ecole Normale Superieure
Annales des sciences mathematiques du Quebec
Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska
Annals of Applied Probability
Annals of Combinatorics
Annals of Global Analysis and Geometry
Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics
Annals of Mathematics
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
Annals of Operations Research
Annals of Physics
Annals of Probability
Annals of Pure and Applied Logic
Annals of Statistics
I notice a curious fact: we can’t (has been argued) use “Proceedings” because that would suggest too low a reputation, and we can’t (has been argued) use “Annals” because that would suggest too high a reputation.
Isn’t it a bit sad that these perfectly neutral and descriptive words are being abused by vanity so much?
Sorry for the rethorical question.
And for the following remark: Math is about correct facts. Among two correct facts one cannot be more correct than the other. That “reputation” of journals comes about from editors making selections according to what they deem relevant . That is a major issue in a journal with finite space for publication. On a wiki, however, it essentially ceases to be an issue:
if there are 100 wiki articles on a topic that one reader finds irrelevant, that reader may not even notice their presence. If five readers find these 100 entries highly relevant, the community has already gained.
One last comment: there are the “Annals of mathematics” and the “Annals of the kings and rulers”. It would be nonsense to say that the latter could be ridiculed for sharing a word in the title with the former, because the former is the only one that deserves to be called “Annals”. Right?
To my ear “Annals of the Lab” sounds perfectly reasonable. That title is not making claims to be akin to the “Annals of Mathematics”, just as it does not make claims to be akin to the “Annals of kings and rulers.”
If you care for the historical usage of terms, ’annals’ suggests somewhat an unprocessed reporting of what occurs on a year by year basis. As the Wikipedia article reports, it is an account of events from no particular point of view. By then if we go down this line of thought, a ’journal’ originally concerned a day to day record.
I don’t see why ’proceedings’ suggests a low reputation. In philosophy there’s the very reputable Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Has ’transactions’ been considered?
Of course, it isn’t necessary to have a word like ’proceedings’ or ’journal’ in the title, as with ’Topology’, but I guess the worry then is how to delineate the subject matter acceptable for publishing in a brief way.
What about Publications of the nLab?
n-Categorical Proceedings (or Annals etc) ?
or simply nMathematics? (there’s presumptuous for you (-: )
I have to say that the associations suggested by Andrew in #6 might have been true for me 6 years ago, but they have been pretty much beaten out of me by my years in academia so far — now all of those words mean the same thing to me, namely “journal.”
Going back to John’s point, do we really want to be enslaved by the past in the form of (some) people’s associations with journal names? I find it preposterous that publications are judged on the basis of where they were published anyway, rather than what people actually think of them. We’ve talked about ways to overhaul that system with wiki-reviews and ratings, why not trust in the future?
I know that there are reputable journals with Proceedings in the title. But most of us are surrounded by natural science departments like physics, chemistry, biology and one should save oneself from needing to prove that this journal is not a proceedings in their sense (that is, a conference reports formats where people typically in those subjects duplicate original journal results in short, updated or preliminary form). If a journal is unusual already, and this one is then we will anyway be scrutinized for quality, why to risk more confusion ?
Urs: annals are not being kelp only by rulers and kings, but also by custoses of museums, keepers of institutions, secretaries of societies, domestic historians of the cities and so on. I do not understand any perjorative or household connotations in word “Memoirs”; societies and professions have their memoirs, memorandums, annals, notices and so on, as regular forms of communications, records, bookkeepings and so on…
Mike: nMathematics or nMathematics journal is not a bad name, I quite like it, except that it makes it less attractive for physicists to publish in.
I find it preposterous that publications are judged on the basis of where they were published anyway, rather than what people actually think of them.
I agree. We just had some related discussions of http://fens.mdc-berlin.de/media/pdf/PNAS-Article-Marder-Kettenmann-Grillner.pdf
10 Domenico: Yes, not a bad name, except that I consider other contributions in nLab sort of publications as well, while I am quite sure I do not consider them being in a journal. I still think that nJournal or alike is more quickly conveying the idea that it is a journal.
There is a point of keeping it simple. The nJournal is a short term, quite snappy, and conveys the link with the nLab AND also that it is a journal and is to be thought of as such.
I would expect nMemoirs to be a suitable name to use, for instance for making PhD theses converted into nLab format to be made available.
Certain of the things that I have put on my home page might be also suitable (they are typically lecture notes of talks), so what about an nNotes series eventually if the idea gets off the ground.
nProceedings may be worth keeping to one side as we could also offer the nLab-style for proceedings of conferences, for the future. There would be no problem there about republishing a fuller version in more conventional format. (Have a look at the Dagstuhl seminars series, they use pdf not a wiki style but the resource is available for everyone… it is even published in a book form in very limited numbers.)
While any of these names seems OK, to me, I like Journal of the Lab the best, simply because it is the most neutral. Justifiably or not, “Proceedings” and “Annals” may suggest unwanted connotations, but “Journal” never will.
Okay, my vote for Journal of the Lab now, too.
(I will say Journal in informal communication, just as i say Café despite its full name. But I agree that the official name should not be “Journal.)
That’s fine for me, too. It’s not my favourite, but it neutral, which is fine. So I agree. Considering also Zoran’s #13, it seems there’s consensus on Journal of the nLab.
Okay, I’ll go along with Journal of the nLab.
Okay, I’ll change the name of the sub-web from “Annals” to “Journal” then, when I find a second.
It will take me a bit to get to that, though. Maybe somebody else could meanwhile paste Mike’s summary of the latest discussion that he posted in some thread into Proceedings preparation (nlabmeta) and edit it a bit to fit in there.
Aw, and I was going to say that I liked “nJournal” better than “Journal of the nLab,” because it conveys a membership in the “nGroup” of things without explicitly sounding subservient to the nLab (as opposed to a parallel venture by an overlapping group of people). But I suppose it does sound odder.
I’ve now copied (with copied minor edits) Mike’s summary into Republication in other Journals, in Proceedings preparation (nlabmeta). I’ve added to Mike’s summary that we allow for publication in other journals, but, in any case, once a paper is published in the nJournal it can not be withdrawn.
I agree with Journal of the nLab.
I’ve always thought of most ‘‑’ names as abbreviations. Only the -Category Café has a commonly used name that looks complete, but the -Category Lab and the -Category Forum exist, even if we officially call them something shorter (the former even without a hyphen).
So we could have the -Category Journal.
On the other hand, I recognise that part of the reason for using shorter names is to avoid the impression that higher categories are the only higher structures.
“Journal of n-Mathematics”? (-:
I guess I’m fine with “Journal of the nLab”.
I like Journal of n-Mathematics better than having nLab in the name for the same reasons. The editors are not associated with the nLab, so why should nLab play such a prominent role? I think I understand Urs’ reason, but not sure that is good enough.
Whatever it ends up being, I hope it’s abbreviation is nJournal :)
Edit: One more thing…
Hypothetically, let’s say an author has a personal web. They write their paper and submit it to the nJournal. It is accepted and published. Now two versions exist. If you then put an evolving version on the nLab, there will be three versions. Is that what you really want?
@ Eric
The version on the private web is probably unnecessary at this point, although it’s up to the author what to do with that.
The other two versions we do want.
Is that what you really want?
I think it is:
one version is the authors’s personal, possibly not to be edited by anyone but that author;
one version is the stable one to which people may refer to when citing results. Nobody can edit this.
one version in the public domain, to benefit from swarm intelligence.
Seems to make perfect sense to me. as a user i will be looking at the Lab-version by default. If I wonder what one particular’s author personal point of view on the material is, undistrubed by other contributors, I look at the personal web. If I want to know what of the results are regarded as reliable, I look at the ournal version.
I think this is actually very analogous to traditional publishing, where we also have three versions: the authors’s LaTeX source on his personal computer, the arXiv version and the published version.
My slight inclination would be for something like “Journal of the nGroup” rather than “Journal of the nLab” or “Journal of n-Mathematics”. “Journal of the nLab” makes it subservient to the nLab rather than alongside. “Journal of n-Mathematics” makes it sound as though only articles about higher category mathematics would be accepted. That might be what is meant, but if so it hasn’t been said explicitly yet. There’s a fair bit on the n-Lab which isn’t explicitly higher categorical so the ability to submit arbitrary stuff from the n-Lab would thereby be compromised.
The main problem with “Journal of the nGroup” is that the nGroup does not officially exist. However, if it was desired to set it up, it could be done simultaneously with the journal - it needn’t hold up establishing the journal.
@30:
It not only makes sense to me, but I would find it very nice to have all the three versions above. In particular I can imagine many authors could like having “the author’s cut” available among the other versions (at least, I’d like that :) )
“Journal of n-Mathematics” makes it sound as though only articles about higher category mathematics would be accepted.
I kind of like “Journal of n-Math” or “The n-Math Journal” where n-Math means studies of n-Mathematics (higher category theory) OR applications of n-Mathematics (or maybe just plain category theory for some cases) outside of n-Mathematics.
I presume all the official Journal publications will have something to do with category-theory, while some n-Lab pages may not - they might cover foundational issues or some presentation of a mathematical concept in a traditional form that isn’t categorical but might be ripe for categorification.
If it were up to me I’d pick Proceedings of the nLab, because I like to think of the nLab as a seminar that happens to be spread out in time and space. But I don’t have a problem with Journal of the nLab, which seems clear and fairly unambiguous. As for a title involving n-Mathematics, that term seems a bit obscure — would J. Random Mathematician even understand what the n is supposed to mean?
@Rod
I presume all the official Journal publications will have something to do with category-theory
maybe not all. I could see some really constructivist foundation-type article appearing in the Journal, which is secretly category theory (it is mathematics internal to a some sort of category), but not explicitly so, or even presented as such. But then it is a matter of perspective. Ask some modern algebraic geometers whether they are category-theorists, and they will probably say no, even though most of what they do is category and higher-category theoretic.
I definitely think the Journal should be open to “non-higher” category theory. Note that Tom’s topos theory survey currently under submission is “non-higher” category theory!
I’m fine with “Journal of the nLab” officially and “nJournal” unofficially.
I’m fine with “Journal of the nLab” officially and “nJournal” unofficially.
I just wanted to say that while scrolling down the posts…
Here's a status update on the ISSN application. The remaining information that I need in order to apply is:
Clearly the first issue of any journal should be number 0! (Or maybe that would be the zeroth issue?)
publication name
As far as I can see we did settle on “Journal of the Lab” as the official title. Nicknamed “Journal”.
OK, good; I wasn't too sure.
Mike (40): you're joking, right...?
Re numbering: the TAC system seems sensible to me. This is one volume per year and one number per article, starting at Vol 1, No 1. Any opinions otherwise?
Also, now is the time to say if you think I shouldn't go ahead and apply for an ISSN in the near future. If no one says I shouldn't, then I'll wait a few days to make sure there's consensus on the name and numbering, then do it.
Actually… coming back to Domenico’s suggestion in #10. I like “Publications of the Lab” better than “Journal of the Lab”. “Journal” has too many wrong associatinons with it.
I didn’t spot “Publications”. I like it. I’d rank it alongside “Journal”, or maybe a little higher as it doesn’t seem to be loaded in any sense.
I cannot but like “Publications” :)
Tom wrote: Mike (40): you’re joking, right…?
I agree with Mike, and computer scientists, where counting always starts with zero.
By the way, in my own practice when I will cite original contributions in nJournal I will cite them with whatever nJournal publication data are. When citing nLab material, promoted or not, I will not cite nJournal version but the all inclusive nLab version; nLab is where I work and nLab is having the full history of contributions and versions; hence it is an original resource in such cases. As I prefer original resources, I will cite nLab and will not cite nJournal in the cases when they overlap with the same material. I hope nLab will have at some point remarks on quality and refereeing anyway.
What could go better with the nCafe than the nPub?
Raising from alcochol free culture to alcochol-sustained… :)
Mike (40): you’re joking, right…?
Well, it depends what you mean. I do believe that it’s generally better to start counting with zero. I do mathematical induction starting with zero, I believe that zero is a natural number, I usually index things starting from zero, etc. So I think it would be awesome to have a math journal that started with volume zero. But I suppose it might be more confusing to people than the amusement value would be worth, so in that sense, yes, I was joking.
Oh, and “Publications” is okay with me too.
I wonder if starting with Vol 0 Number 0 would screw up some things, like Y2K bugs were supposed to. Maybe someone should ask the ISBN folks and some Library Science types.
Then again it might make sense to start with Vol 2011.
beware: we won’t necessarily need issue numbers at all.
But if we do, there is good reason for an issue 0: if all goes according to (my, at least) plan, as it seems to go currently, we’ll have two test-case publications before the official editorial board is officially put into place, and before the whole thing is anounced to the world. Those two publications would naturally sit in a 0-volume.
Publications of the nLab sounds good to me too. (BTW at my day job, we talk about ’pub’s all the time, where pub = publication. Just saving syllables perhaps)
I see two reasons to have traditional issue numbers (Vol 2, No. 3 etc):
As part of the effort to make nLab publications look unobtrusive on a CV/publications list. I know I keep making this point, but I think it's important. I think it will affect how many people are willing to contribute high quality work.
For ease of citation.
It will already be slightly untraditional in that it won't (presumably) have page numbers.
IIRC JHRS has page numbers. I think that they are just consecutive for each volume (=year, I think)
And there is only ever a ’no. 1’ for each volume for JHRS. This may be an option for nJournal/nPublications
Another name now? (I know, it came up before.)
I still prefer “Journal”. We’re trying to put it on the same footing as traditional mathematical journals, while “Publications” is more general (and could mean monographs, which I guess are even more prestigious than journal articles, but it doesn’t give the right impression to me).
I'm ready to request an ISSN as soon as people on the Steering Committee tell me to. As far as I can tell, the status of the two decisions that need making (name and numbering) is as follows:
Name: Publications of the nLab. (No one seems to be objecting to this.)
Numbering: Start at Vol. 0, No. 1 (or No. 0?) .
Personally I think "Vol. 0" sounds a bit silly -- I'd start at Vol. 1 -- but I can see the reason. Anyway, it's up to you guys.
I'd like to repeat my suggestion that the numbering is done like TAC: one volume per year and one number per article. If we're starting at Vol 0 then maybe an exception to the annual rule would be made: e.g. maybe you'll want to start Vol 1 in a couple of months.
Of course, I'm hoping to secure that prestigious "Vol. 0, No. 0" or "Vol. 1, No. 1" spot.
Concerning the title: I’ll initiate a formal decision on the name by the steering committee.
Concerning volume numbering: the word “volume” is a relict of paper publishing. Do we strictly need a “volume” number for the ISSN? But I agree that articles should be labeled by year and submission order in that year. If that needs to be called “volume” and “number” for formality reasons then so be it, but it does not strictly make sense.
A few issues
Shouldn’t the journal name be decided by the Board of Editors?
Should the abbreviation “Lab” appear in the name, as opposed to “Publications of the nLaboratory”? Or do some want “nPubs of the nLab”.
I think starting with volume 1 is fine, I was mostly just making a joke.
If anybody lurking wants to join me in pushing to keep “Journal”, then you should say so here today. Otherwise it’s going to be “Publications”.
I would prefer ’Journal’ for something that is essentially a wikified version of a traditional paper/PDF journal.
I think it was Tim who suggested having several different ’strands’ of nLab-based publication. That seems like a good idea. We could have the nJournal for traditional-style papers, and maybe an nProceedings or something like that for stuff that’s come out of the nLab itself.
Then again, if there’s going to be a single strand that will publish both papers and peer-reviewed extracts of nLab pages, maybe Publications is the better name.
I would prefer ’Journal’ for something that is essentially a wikified version of a traditional paper/PDF journal.
Right, so that’s an argument for not calling the general project a “Journal”.
If anyone has the energy, I’d be happy to see an “Journal” as a substrand of the Publications . As far as I am concerned, my spare energy is already more than used up by setting up the main project in the first place. But that need not stop other people.
@Urs (60):
Do we strictly need a "volume" number for the ISSN?
Not exactly. The UK form says "Date and volume numbering of first issue [...] As it appears on the first issue - e.g. Vol. 1, no. 1". I don't have the Norwegian form to hand, but I think it's very similar.
My feeling is that some numbering system is helpful. It needn't be a hassle: "Vol 5, No 2" can just mean "the second article accepted in 2015". That doesn't cost anyone any effort, and it needn't be displayed prominently.
It could also help people to find articles, and I think it will in some way reassure people that the peer reviewing process is being stuck to. Unfamiliar large websites can look sprawling and unfathomable. Maybe that's especially true of wikis. A familiar numbering system could reassure newcomers that the set of peer reviewed articles is under conscious and careful editorial control.
PS: Observe that, by happy chance, we're now in 2011. So if this year is Volume 1, it's very easy to translate between years and volumes :-)
A familiar numbering system could reassure newcomers that the set of peer reviewed articles is under conscious and careful editorial control.
Well, I will do all I can to ensure that it is clear that the set of reviewed articles are under conscious and careful editorial control, much more so than any plain numbering system will.. There will be a detailed hyperlinked table of contents, there will be info boxes for each article indicating precisely what kind of peer review it went through.
And certainly we can number the articles by appearance. It’s just that the word “volume” just makes no sense. “Number” does. “Year” does. “Volume” does not.
Of course we can fake having “volumes” to make the Pub look more like a traditional journal. By all means, if the ISSN wants us to specify a volume number, let’s do so.
You're right, of course: literally speaking it makes no sense for an electronic journal, even a more traditional one like Theory and Applications of Categories, to have "volumes". I'd never thought of it. I suppose it's one of those changes of language I hadn't noticed before this discussion, like "journals" not being a record of what happens each day and "annals" not being a record of what happens each year.
Should the abbreviation “Lab” appear in the name… ?
I’m not sure that “nLab” is actually an abbreviation for anything. “nCafe” is an abbreviation for “n-Category Cafe”, but the front nLab page just calls it “The nLab”.
I agree with Urs that year is a better thing than volume. International Mathematics Research Notices does not group more than one paper in the same issue, so they have as many issues as papers, if I recall right. Thus the page numbering of every paper starts with 1.
1 to 71 of 71