By they way what are the top 10 journals? I know we should the ultimate 5, Duke and JEMS, what are the remaining three?
Forum Mathematics Sigma and Pi - have they been successful?
By they way what are the top 10 journals? I know we should the ultimate 5, Duke and JEMS, what are the remaining three?
A million threads cover this already, and you won't get any agreement on this.
A given person can only have a worthy opinion on papers in their field, beyond that it's all bs
By they way what are the top 10 journals? I know we should the ultimate 5, Duke and JEMS, what are the remaining three?
A million threads cover this already, and you won't get any agreement on this.
Because somebody kept mentioning "top 10", which I never heard of. What I ever heard is "top 5", because I know that 6-10 are debatable.
[...]
Can you share the name of the book? I want to look up these unknown theorems
Curious too
Duren's Univalent Functions.
I had a dissociative experience reading it. The results all look nice, there's a bunch of pretty geometric ideas, and the theorems I read flipping through were broken down into a couple lemmas with clever proofs and then a page using them to get something nice; yet its somehow totally alien. As if someone trained an owl or a large cat to write a book on analysis. Or some lost tribe thought bounds on coefficients of a power series would make the rain come.
Twenty minutes of poking around did convince me that the Koebe function is magically universal, yet I've never seen it for anything other than proving uniformization.
[...]
A million threads cover this already, and you won't get any agreement on this.
A given person can only have a worthy opinion on papers in their field, beyond that it's all bs
This is false. Judging other's work is different than doing it. One can see quality without necessarily being able to produce at the same level. Evidently most people do neither
[...]
A given person can only have a worthy opinion on papers in their field, beyond that it's all bs
This is false. Judging other's work is different than doing it. One can see quality without necessarily being able to produce at the same level. Evidently most people do neither
That's not exactly what that person wrote. How can a probabilist judge whether a result in higher homotopy theory is of good quality?
That's not exactly what that person wrote. How can a probabilist judge whether a result in higher homotopy theory is of good quality?
Exactly. This has been said before, but the reason people especially here are so obsessed with top 5 is that it allows you to pass judgement on publication records without knowing anything.
Some of the pushback might indeed be insecurity about their own record making people lose objectivity, but the core point that just knowing the journal and nothing else is not as informative as people seem to believe is correct.
By they way what are the top 10 journals? I know we should the ultimate 5, Duke and JEMS, what are the remaining three?
A million threads cover this already, and you won't get any agreement on this.
Duke, JEMS, and then depending on your field pick three in {forum of math, annals of ENS, GAFA, CPAM}
[...]
This is false. Judging other's work is different than doing it. One can see quality without necessarily being able to produce at the same level. Evidently most people do neither
That's not exactly what that person wrote. How can a probabilist judge whether a result in higher homotopy theory is of good quality?
It's very possible to understand enough to judge whether something in an area is good or not while not being able or not having time to produce results of the same quality in that area. Perhaps it is easier to judge that something is nothing special than to affirm with confidence that it is good.
That's not exactly what that person wrote. How can a probabilist judge whether a result in higher homotopy theory is of good quality?
Exactly. This has been said before, but the reason people especially here are so obsessed with top 5 is that it allows you to pass judgement on publication records without knowing anything.
Some of the pushback might indeed be insecurity about their own record making people lose objectivity, but the core point that just knowing the journal and nothing else is not as informative as people seem to believe is correct.
Sometimes it is difficult for a department to decide when they should hire an applicant with nobody is specialized in that area. What it boils down is to judge the prestige of the journals.
Some fields like Probability is vulnerable to this problem.
[...]
Exactly. This has been said before, but the reason people especially here are so obsessed with top 5 is that it allows you to pass judgement on publication records without knowing anything.
Some of the pushback might indeed be insecurity about their own record making people lose objectivity, but the core point that just knowing the journal and nothing else is not as informative as people seem to believe is correct.
Sometimes it is difficult for a department to decide when they should hire an applicant with nobody is specialized in that area. What it boils down is to judge the prestige of the journals.
Some fields like Probability is vulnerable to this problem.
Any math department worth its salt should be hiring probability folks even if they don't have an existing probability group. It's a serious area of mathematics, and a prerequisite for doing the non-serious buzzwords of the day. If there's still a math department without a probabilist in this day and age, they must have some serious old-timey snootiness inbuilt in their department's culture.
[...]
Exactly. This has been said before, but the reason people especially here are so obsessed with top 5 is that it allows you to pass judgement on publication records without knowing anything.
Some of the pushback might indeed be insecurity about their own record making people lose objectivity, but the core point that just knowing the journal and nothing else is not as informative as people seem to believe is correct.
Sometimes it is difficult for a department to decide when they should hire an applicant with nobody is specialized in that area. What it boils down is to judge the prestige of the journals.
Some fields like Probability is vulnerable to this problem.
There are several probability positions every year, so we don't care
[...]
Exactly. This has been said before, but the reason people especially here are so obsessed with top 5 is that it allows you to pass judgement on publication records without knowing anything.
Some of the pushback might indeed be insecurity about their own record making people lose objectivity, but the core point that just knowing the journal and nothing else is not as informative as people seem to believe is correct.
Sometimes it is difficult for a department to decide when they should hire an applicant with nobody is specialized in that area. What it boils down is to judge the prestige of the journals.
Some fields like Probability is vulnerable to this problem.
The prestige of a journal can be a proxy for the quality of a paper, but some good papers don't make it into the very top journals. Or, some papers turn out to be more influential later. Therefore, wouldn't it make more sense to lean more into what the recommendation letters say?
I mean, suppose we're talking about candidates who are certainly above average but not necessarily the cream of the crop. It's kind of easy to say "just look for an Annals paper," but the reality is, a lot of good candidates in that tier will not have such a paper. I also think early-career mathematicians can be at a disadvantage because they need to show a good publication record but it takes a lot of time to publish in the top journals.
[...]
Sometimes it is difficult for a department to decide when they should hire an applicant with nobody is specialized in that area. What it boils down is to judge the prestige of the journals.
Some fields like Probability is vulnerable to this problem.
The prestige of a journal can be a proxy for the quality of a paper, but some good papers don't make it into the very top journals. Or, some papers turn out to be more influential later. Therefore, wouldn't it make more sense to lean more into what the recommendation letters say?
I mean, suppose we're talking about candidates who are certainly above average but not necessarily the cream of the crop. It's kind of easy to say "just look for an Annals paper," but the reality is, a lot of good candidates in that tier will not have such a paper. I also think early-career mathematicians can be at a disadvantage because they need to show a good publication record but it takes a lot of time to publish in the top journals.
Well, an obvious problem is that recommendation letters are even more biased than publications. The tone of any letter would strongly depend on personal connections, friendliness, field preferences, etc, of the author. You should just accept that there is no way to objectively linearly order researchers, no matter whether you use journals, letters, or any other approach.
[...]
The prestige of a journal can be a proxy for the quality of a paper, but some good papers don't make it into the very top journals. Or, some papers turn out to be more influential later. Therefore, wouldn't it make more sense to lean more into what the recommendation letters say?
I mean, suppose we're talking about candidates who are certainly above average but not necessarily the cream of the crop. It's kind of easy to say "just look for an Annals paper," but the reality is, a lot of good candidates in that tier will not have such a paper. I also think early-career mathematicians can be at a disadvantage because they need to show a good publication record but it takes a lot of time to publish in the top journals.
Well, an obvious problem is that recommendation letters are even more biased than publications. The tone of any letter would strongly depend on personal connections, friendliness, field preferences, etc, of the author. You should just accept that there is no way to objectively linearly order researchers, no matter whether you use journals, letters, or any other approach.
True.
[...]
The prestige of a journal can be a proxy for the quality of a paper, but some good papers don't make it into the very top journals. Or, some papers turn out to be more influential later. Therefore, wouldn't it make more sense to lean more into what the recommendation letters say?
I mean, suppose we're talking about candidates who are certainly above average but not necessarily the cream of the crop. It's kind of easy to say "just look for an Annals paper," but the reality is, a lot of good candidates in that tier will not have such a paper. I also think early-career mathematicians can be at a disadvantage because they need to show a good publication record but it takes a lot of time to publish in the top journals.
Well, an obvious problem is that recommendation letters are even more biased than publications. The tone of any letter would strongly depend on personal connections, friendliness, field preferences, etc, of the author. You should just accept that there is no way to objectively linearly order researchers, no matter whether you use journals, letters, or any other approach.
What you can demand is diversity in letter writers. If the candidate has friendly connections with several communities (i.e. in different countries and/or in closely related fields) then some of the bias goes away.
Your screen is so tiny that we decided to disable the captcha and posting feature
Formatting guidelines: Commonmark with no images and html allowed. $ and $$ for LaTeX. Input previewed in last post of thread. For a link to be allowed it must include the http(s) tag and come from the list of allowed domains.