Sunday, November 13, 2011

Journals, Conferences, Arxiv: my solution.

There has recently been a flurry of posts in the blog world discussing the publication system.

Journals: articles take a long time to publish. Reviewers take forever to review. They don't do a good job. They're picky, and they lack good taste. Not that it matters, because people don't read journal articles anyway. Selective journals are biased for or against one fashionable area or another. Less selective journals drown us with too many articles to choose from. They're also expensive. It's a rip off.

Conferences: articles are half-baked. Reviewers don't read past the introduction. Committees make choices based on author reputation and fashionable keywords. The system is rigged. They accept too few papers, so researchers can't have access to that means of making their work known. They accept too many papers, so researchers drown in an excessive quantity of results being output by the community. The quality is low. They lack depth, accepting flashy results with big words and no substance. They lack breadth, accepting results in areas that are currently the fad and ignoring everything else. They're also expensive. It's a rip off.

Arxiv: an Arxiv paper is not a publication. It's not properly vetted, it's not refereed, we don't know whether they'll be around in one hundred years, there are way too many reports being published there, it doesn't cover everything and some researchers are still resisting to put their results on the arxiv, there is no guarantee that the results are correct or interesting, it's a way for people to claim a result with a poorly written manuscript, it impedes research by preventing more serious researchers from doing a more thorough job.

So many problems! So many complaints! What a dark age we live in! Now, it is my turn to put in my two cents.

My solution: I propose a simple and effective solution, namely: do not publish your work.

What could be simpler to implement? There are many advantages to not publishing. Just consider: If you do not publish, you do not waste other people's valuable time by forcing them to referee your papers, you do not add to the information overload by adding your own stuff on arxiv. You are performing a public service by not publishing. It also frees your own time by giving you the liberty to turn down refereeing requests, so you'll have more time to do better research.

But then, one might ask: how are your results going to get disseminated? First, most results don't matter, so no one will notice the difference. Second, if a result does matter, the odds are that several other people will also find it at the same time, so the result emerges naturally from the research community, without you having to go through the pain of publishing. Third, if by some extraordinary chance a result matters and you're the only one who truly understands it, then, as you give talks about it, it will catch on. Eventually someone else will be interested enough to think and write about it - here I'm thinking, for example, of part of Thurston's paper entitled "Conway's tiling groups".

That leads me to the second part of my proposed solution: publish other people's work. By that, of course, I do not mean stealing other people's ideas or results. Rather, what I mean is: when you hear about something that gets you excited, something that you want to understand badly enough that you are willing to spend many hours studying it, something that makes you so happy that you want to share the joy by communicating what you learned to others around you, then it is time to write an article about it.

As to your own research, leave it for others to write about if anyone cares to do it.


  1. I guess you meant this as a joke, but a milder version of this is really not a bad idea: when you have a result, don't write it up and try to publish it just because there exists a conference/journal that will accept it. Instead, only write it up if you are excited enough about it that you would read the paper yourself if someone else wrote it.

  2. Yes. It's a common sense criterion, isn't it? Why would you want to spend your time writing something that you don't really want to be spending your time on?

  3. In some sense, I agree. I could see making (or finishing) a career by synthesizing research and writing textbooks about it. You only have to write about the interesting stuff and you can leave the crappy stuff for the references.

    Most of my favourite blog posts are when people write about an interesting result they've read or talk they've seen at a conference.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.