tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439168179960787195.post3754282928642405115..comments2024-03-19T20:38:11.255+10:00Comments on Condensed concepts: Have journals become redundant and counter productive?Ross H. McKenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09950455939572097456noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439168179960787195.post-73359372972048875502012-02-02T10:59:38.862+10:002012-02-02T10:59:38.862+10:00In answer to the "arXiv in chemistry" qu...In answer to the "arXiv in chemistry" question, it would be interesting to get some data on the frequency of patent filings related to published work. You can't publish before patenting, so for many experimental chemistry labs there will be a delay anyway between the time the patent is written up and the time the work is published. Of course, there is plenty of work in physics with direct application that could be patented, so it is not clear that is really is the key to understanding the cultural difference.<br /><br />My PhD advisor remarked to me once that chemistry has traditionally been the most money-driven of the natural sciences. This goes back to the alchemists, really, whose goal was literally to make money...Seth Olsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09304457461800104790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439168179960787195.post-84260763055087416892012-02-01T18:06:49.458+10:002012-02-01T18:06:49.458+10:00I wonder if a world with arXiv alone would work.
...I wonder if a world with arXiv alone would work.<br /><br />It's true, I check the arXiv daily, but the PRL website once every week or two, prb even less, and Nature/Science very occasionally (never ever Nature : Physics, not sure exactly why except that the trip always seemed pointless in the end). That being said I'm keen to publish in any of those!<br /><br />But without the inevitable review process, I wonder if arXiv submissions would become sloppy and unpolished, mistake-ridden, and more often wrong.<br /><br />That being said, one's reputation is at stake with arXiv submissions, and they're more risky having not been reviewed, and so perhaps it self regulates quite well.<br /><br />What I really love about the arXiv is that journal prejudice, on new submissions, is completely absent (except hints: 4+ pages? They're going for PRL!), and so as you say, scientific merit and relevance to my current work alone determine my interest.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08582644751812812675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439168179960787195.post-34580028098359871492012-02-01T15:41:19.433+10:002012-02-01T15:41:19.433+10:00I personally hate looking things up in certain jou...I personally hate looking things up in certain journals (meaning certain publishers) and really only read stuff that's on the arxiv or papers worth the trip to the library (a good example, is that i recently looked up some of rashba's old work and that quality is work the walk). <br /><br />i also think ive seen flat out wrong papers in PNAS and nature/science are usually vague and overblown. people frequently lament how their good work was rejected from X but published in Y (hey, PRL see this?) <br /><br />when i write citations in my papers i cite the papers that i found useful to me. then usually my coauthors make me site the 'important' people. even if they suck.anonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18356228211708177340noreply@blogger.com