Most people these days post to the arxiv before they even send their paper to a journal, and some have stopped submitting to journals altogether. (I wish they all would, it would cut down on that annoying refereeing we all have to do.) And nobody actually reads the journals — they serve exclusively as ways to verify that your work has passed peer review.Now that would be a neat model to adopt.
p.s I personally am not that enamored of trackbacks. Blogger doesn't support them, trackback spam is rampant, and they can be cumbersome to use. Technorati "who links to me" pages are often more effective. But they do provide a (semi-)automatic comment mechanism that allows for discussions of papers to be carried out in the blogosphere, so it will be interesting to see how effective this is.
While I welcome a shift to more electronic forms of communicating results (it's always struck me as odd that the physicists seem to be more fervent adopters of this technology than computer scientists), we shouldn't rush too quickly to get rid of journals. We still need the formal stamp of approval given by journals, as hinted at by your commenter, *that are recognised by people outside the field*.
ReplyDeleteThis strikes me as I start to gather materials for a green card application -- I need to present lots of evidence of what a smart cookie I am, and this should be in the form of journal articles, invitation letters to conferences and so on. Somehow, I don't think that a collection of arxiv urls and emailed invitations to come by and give a talk would carry as much weight...
Graham
Posted by Graham Cormode
in no way do I think we should get rid of journals. Even the 'advanced adopters' in physics don't recommend that. In fact the arxiv merely provides the functionality that to a large degree our conferences provide: quick dissemination and time stamping.
ReplyDeletePosted by Suresh