Conduct and Correctness in Mathematical Publishing
Publishing Research Quarterly, ISSN: 1936-4792, Vol: 38, Issue: 3, Page: 586-598
2022
- 2Citations
- 10Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Little publicity is given in mathematics to journal organization and maintaining correctness of the literature. However, worrisome policies of editorial handling and peer review are exercised in mathematical academia. They originate both from modern trends (like automatization) and from a traditionally and widely spread complacent and idle attitude in academic circuits. This article displays such policies on the basis of specific instances and the reaction these practices lead to when issues about correctness of published mathematics are raised. It is drawn on concrete cases, which are crucial to understanding the cause of problems, and hence also possible approaches to solutions.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know