November 17, 2011
A minor celebration today…I’ve finally had my first paper accepted for publication. As a measure of how long and convoluted this process has been, consider the fact that this is the very same* paper that I discussed in this post. That was written in October 2010, and was titled “A year’s work, lessons learnt”. Which means, according to my calculations, that the time between beginning work on this project, and actually getting something published has been over 2 years!
Of course, most of this time was not spent actually doing anything related to that particular paper. In fact, the majority of the time was spent waiting for referees to get round to reading the thing. Actually “waiting” is the wrong word, as I have come to realise that the best strategy when submitting papers to journals is not to wait, but to completely put it out of your mind (unfortunately this doesn’t help when you then have to revise it months later), and perhaps set some kind of reminder to get in touch with the editor one year in the future and ask exactly what is going on. I currently have two other papers “under review”, one of which has been “with editor” (I assume this to mean that the editor hasn’t got around to actually looking at it, let alone passing it to a referee) since May, and the other which, perhaps thankfully, I have no way of knowing what is happening with.
There is intermittent hand-wringing about the peer-review system in mathematical circles, and in academia in general. Like exams, and job interviews, it seems to be grudgingly accepted to be the least bad form of evaluation. Recently Timothy Gowers raised the possibility of an alternative system on his blog, which led to much fevered debate (I have just noted that I am at least the the seventh blog to have linked to that particular post, so it is safe to assume the debate sparked by it stretches much further than that particular lengthy list of comments!).
Read the rest of this entry »
October 11, 2010
I’m back! And rather surprisingly, I seem to have gained a lot of readers in my absence. Having not even logged on to WordPress for a few months, I have returned to see that my google reader subscription rate has doubled, and the number of people visiting the blog has increased by more than at any point since I started writing it. I’m not really sure what lesson to take from this. Probably it is just the natural result of a gradual snowballing effect: over time more people click on your site, the google rankings go up, causing more people to click on your site…
Then again it’s possible that people just prefer it when I don’t write anything! Well I’m sorry those people, but I intend to start again. Although possibly even more erratically than before.
Anyway, I will explain the terrible sequence of events which led me to abandon blog shortly, but first, a shameless Rupert Murdoch-style using of one of my products to promote another! (I would do this at the end, but am rather doubtful as to how many people actually make it to the end of my posts). Having been introduced to Vietnamese coffee by my father-in-law a while ago, I have utterly fallen in love with it, and realised that it is very difficult to find here in the UK. So I have set up a (very) small business selling it. The website is here. Try it! You won’t be disappointed.
Sorry about that. Now, this is what happened. Having struggled with the proof of a knotty mathematical problem for the better part of a year, I was advised by my supervisor to publish what I had. So I put the paper on the arXiv (an online preprint archive), not really expecting to achieve anything, but generally wanting to share the knowledge out of a spirit of altruism (and self-promotion). Within a few hours of it appearing, a certain Peter Mueller had read it, and proved the last part of the conjecture! (So there you go doubters: people do read your preprints). This was wonderful news; we invited him to be a co-author, and set about writing a final draft. I also wrote a whole long blog post about how great this was, and what it all meant. But then a couple of days later Prof. Mueller sent me some rather less good news: he had found a mistake in my work, which completely invalidated the whole thing…
Read the rest of this entry »