Talk:Annals of Mathematics

Appears not to be Open Access any longer

It appears that, since 30 June 2008, the electronic version is only available to print subscribers? 130.238.58.63 (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

possibly not originally The Analyst

This article currently (and previously) says that the Annals of Mathematics started life as The Analyst, but I'm not convinced that this is correct. JSTOR is the only source I can find that claims that to be the case. Notably, the Annals of Mathematics itself does not anywhere claim that, and instead claims to have been founded in 1884. Also, this 1905 address that discusses both journals doesn't say that they are the same journal with a name change, but treats them as separate. The Analyst did disappear at the end of 1883, with Hendricks mentioning in the last issue that he was trying to make arrangements for it to reappear under new management, and Annals of Mathematics perhaps not coincidentally appeared at the beginning of 1884. However I think it would be more accurate to say that the Annals immediately filled the void left by the Analyst, unless someone can find a source (other than JSTOR) claiming it to be a renaming of the same journal. --Delirium 01:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering this also, and have read the sources you mention. However, I am not fully convinced by Fiske's remarks. I think it may be best just to email JSTOR and ask their reasons for their statement that the Annals "continues" the Analyst. --C S (Talk) 12:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I emailed the Annals of Mathematics but they didn't seem to have any good historical information readily available beyond what's on their website (presumably they do have archives somewhere, but maybe not well-organized ones). I'll see if I can get a reply from JSTOR. --Delirium 07:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In answer to a query from my talk page about the above: I never got a reply from JSTOR, but I did find an old journal article (in a 1932 volume of Scripta Mathematica) that described the Annals as "a continuation of the Analyst". That provides at least some evidence, besides the coincidence and Hendricks's comment in the last issue of the Analyst that he planned to arrange for a continuation, that the two journals actually are considered the same. --Delirium (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC: should both abbreviations be mentioned in the lede

Should both abbeviations of the journal be included in the lede, as in this revision? Previous discussion can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals#Abbreviation_standards. Please leave your opinion below. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems sensible to include both. --Salix (talk): 11:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Great! A third debate. I move to speedily close this RfC, as this very issue is already being debated at length at two other places. --Crusio (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Neither of those places is the appropriate place to discuss changes to one particular article, though; they are places to decide general practices that might have exceptions in specific cases. This RFC, is about this particular article only, which should be discussed on this page. Also, this RFC is not about the infobox, just about the lede, so discussions about infoboxes are not too relevant. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Discussion in those other two places comes to approximately 7000 words and touches on several other issues too. I don't think we can expect someone coming in cold to sift through all of that and keep a clear head. The points relevant to this specific journal need to be made on this page. Jowa fan (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• The point of mentioning the abbreviations is to let people look up the abbreviation for the journal. In this case the journal itself uses the abbreviation Ann. of Math, but more importantly Mathematical Reviews uses that abbreviation. Mathematical Reviews is hugely important resource for mathematical journal citations, and it would be odd for us to list some other abbreviation for a math journal such as this without mentioning the abbreviation that MR uses. We should give a short summary of the abbreviations, as the revision linked in the RFC does. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Why do we need an RFC? It seems we have the B step of WP:BRD already, and nobody has yet reverted. I support the current revision, anyway: ISO abbreviation in the ISO abbreviation slot of the infobox, but with a prominent comparison of the two abbreviations in the main text of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It's been reverted plenty of times. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify: I also strongly oppose a revision that would omit the MathSciNet abbreviation. MathSciNet is a much more important standard than ISO to the users of this journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yay for ForestFires (and see also WP:FORUMSHOP)! This debate does not affect just this article. This would in essence affect all mathematics journals article. And then the physics crowd will say "BUT HEY, OUR ARTICLES DOESN'T MENTION OUR ABBREVIATIONS!" and will insert their special abbreviations in the lead ("The Astrophysical Journal, sometimes referred to as Astrophysical Journal, often abbreviated Astrophys. J., Astro. J., Ap. J or AJ, is a peer-reviewed...)", in the lead. And then general science journal articles will want that treatment too (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, sometimes referred to as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, often abbreviated Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, P. Natl. Acad. Sci., P. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, P. Nat. Acad. Sci., PNAS USA or PNAS, is a peer-reviewed... And then chemistry journals... And then biology journals... And then... all of our thousands of journal articles will need to list every abbreviations used for the journal. So no, the lead should not mentioned abbreviations, neither in this article, nor elsewhere. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • This RFC is just about this article. Not biology, chemistry, or any other journal articles. It is not forum shopping to discuss a particular article on the talk page of that very article. If other articles also should list multiple abbreviations, they can also be handled on a case-by-case basis. But I don't think "other articles might also need to show multiple abbreviations" is really an argument against listing the abbreviations here. Just because something might take more work does not make it incorrect, and there are concrete reasons to show the abbreviations here (and on other pages where the MathSciNet abbreviation is different than the ISO one, I suppose). We don't do "one size fits all" policies on Wikipedia; there are always going to be exceptions to the general practice of using ISO abbreviations, and this seems like one of them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe to you, but the fact is that once this start on one article, people will inevitable add them to other articles. Why is Annals of Mathematics so special that only this article warrants mentioning its abbreviations in the lead? Why is Journal of Symbolic Logic different from this journal? Or why is Journal of Discrete Mathematics different from Annals of Mathematics? Why is Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America different? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • If people add commonly-used abbreviations to other journal articles, that seems like beneficial editing to me. We can handle them on a case-by-case basis. The MR abbreviation for the JSL is J. Symb Logic, which is the same as the abbreviation in ZMATH, and I can't find any journal called Journal of Discrete Mathematics in either of them. Did you check those examples before mentioning them? The fact that the abbreviations for Annals are different in MR and ZMATH is why it's worth mentioning them both here; the fact that Annals itself uses Ann. of Math is a second reason. Those are article-specific facts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The journal Discrete Mathematics also has the same abbreviation, "Discrete Math.", in both MR and ZMATH, so it's not an example either. And they both use the ISO abbreviation for the PNAS as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of both abbreviations: the ISO abbreviation "Ann. Math." is rarely used (except notably by ZMATH), so I see no reason not to list the most common, by far, abbreviation, namely "Ann. of Math.". This latter abbreviation is used by the journal itself, by mathscinet, listed as the abbreviation to use by the AMS, and used in countless other journals. It would be quite confusing to the majority of people coming to this article not to find the abbreviation that they have almost surely seen for this journal. If people determine that a footnote explaining some points of the use is warranted, then I support that, as well. RobHar (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annals of Mathematics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202041814/http://cdn.elsevier.com:80/assets/excel_doc/0003/148548/title_list.xlsx to http://cdn.elsevier.com/assets/excel_doc/0003/148548/title_list.xlsx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Content

David Eppstein (and other watchers of this article) I wonder if you have any thoughts on adding content to this article along the lines of the frequency of paper published in this journal from non-US/Europe countries and its correlation with the author winning the Fields Medal or being an ICM speaker. To cite one example it took 60 years for a paper from West Bengal to appear in this journal after January 1954 by Satyendra Nath Bose. Note the author of the 2014 paper is Mahan Mj professor at the Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University (RKMVU was the only private university in WB, was set up under a central legislation, till the Techno India University setup in 2012 under state legislation). Solomon7968 14:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Only if it's already noted in other published sources. Otherwise it would be original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

My source for the above claim is the National Assessment and Accreditation Council evaluative report for RKMVU which explicitly noted the 60 year old gap. OR withstanding why don't you write a blog post related to the topic which will help other potential math students get hold of a perspective how difficult it is to publish a paper in this journal. Solomon7968 02:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)