Talk:Mathematical Reviews

Untitled

I created [this article]; it deserves some filling out. ---- Charles Stewart 20:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

Shouldn't the article title be Mathematical Reviews (capitalize "reviews")? --Edemaine 19:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) implies that titles of books and other works should be capitalized, and AMS also capitalizes "reviews". Unless somebody is going to protest, I will find an admin to do so. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

UNUSUAL

it is stated that "When a work is in an unusual language only bibliographic information may be given.". i propose to change this in a way that is true in longer term and also is neutral. a replacement would be : "When a reviewer familiar with the language of a work is not easily found, only bibliographic information may be given.". though it is not much better, but the original quote above should, in my opinion, be changed. klash23oct2006.

I do not know why the editors decide one way or the other. I see only the result, which is what I described - with "unusual" meaning "other than a major Western language". I understand this is not neutral but that's the way it is. Jmath666 16:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Significant loss of relevance of MathSciNet for applied fields

This statement was marked by User: David Eppstein as {{Fact}}. I concur but do not have a source to cite. I know of many articles that should have been included but were not, but making such list and explaining why smells too much of WP:OR. Any help appreciated. Jmath666 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, to me an evaluative statement like "significant loss of relevance" already feels a little OR-like, which is why I asked for a reference. I didn't really mean making a list of exclusions, I meant more whether you can find a published source that includes a similar line about why MathSciNet is less used or less useful in applied areas. —David Eppstein 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I decided to make the change. Feel free to edit it if you feel strongly about the "loss" but explain your reasoning and sources here first. Mhym 16:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have reformulated the paragraph using sourced statements only. I have considered earlier labeling the section Critique but that would not remove the need for sources. If I come across a suitable reference I might return to the issue. Jmath666 17:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it says what you want it to say, but this link looks relevant. —David Eppstein 17:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed "from nearly all" once again. This is false and the burden of proof is NOT on me but on whoever wants to claim that. I added the reference which lists the number of math journal (18,000 as of 2001) but not the breakdown how many of them cover-to-cover. I know for a fact existence of a large number of journals in the third world countries (usually in languages other than English) which are not covered. To see a glimpse into this, consider the case of a serial plagiarist Dănuț Marcu who tends to publish in journals not covered by the MathSciNet to avoid detection. Geombinatorics is just one of them - other are listed on his "resume". I would believe if you claimed "nearly all US based" or "nearly all English language international" mathematical journals, but as stated this is misleading at best. Mhym 10:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I described the situation as I know it. In my experience, it covers all that matters with the unfortunate exception of many mathematical articles in engineering journals, even major international engineering journals. Of course the reason I know that is that it missed some of mine, and I have colleagues who ignore Mathscinet because it misses much of the literature in areas such as error analysis of finite elements and numerical PDEs. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go search further for an independent source that would say this is a significant loss or relevance. Geombinatorics is abstracted, I checked. I have yet to come across any international or US based or European mathematical journal that is not covered. I believe you it misses large number of third world journals. But "MathSciNet contains information for articles from a large number of mathematical journals" as you wrote is vague and misses completely the importance of this resource. So, why don't you write what you know instead of the "large number"? Jmath666 04:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

MathSci versus MathSciNet

For reasons unknown, user Mathsci has chosen to delete a sentence recording the fact that the Mathematics Reviews database was, as is, available from two commercial providers under the name and trademark MathSci. The sources supplied are datasheets from those suppliers, Lockheed and SilverPlatter, and a press release from the publisher itself, the AMS. No good reason for this deletion: the edit summary here does not enlighten. A.K.Nole (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional reference from the publisher web site here:

“ Mathematical Reviews Database Publication Formats

Since its inception in 1940, the Mathematical Reviews Database of bibliographic listings and reviews of published mathematical research, together with associated data, has grown not only in size but also in complexity. Since 1980, electronic tools for its maintenance have allowed layered information beyond the scope of the paper tools used in the first 40 years. There are many derived products that provide windows into subsets of the root content of the Database and subsets of the linking relationships that exist between entries in the Database. It is expected that new technologies will continue to provide new channels to the content of the Mathematical Reviews Database.

   * Mathematical Reviews
   * MathSciNet
   * MathSci on Dialog©

”

A.K.Nole (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(noindent) MathSci is the name of the electronic database for Mathematical Reviews and Current Mathematical Publications published by the American Mathematical Society. MathSciNet is the name of the online version. MathSci Disc is the name of the earlier largely superseded multidisc set. Mathsci (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you now accept that MathSci is indeed the name of the database, which is what I maintained all along, I assume we are now agreed to reinsert the disputed text, which I remind you read

In 1980, all the contents of Mathematical Reviews since 1940 were integrated into an electronic searchable database, to be known as MathSci. The database was made available online through Lockheed's DIALOG service and sold in CD format through SilverPlatter. In 1999 the AMS completed the transfer to MathSci form.

Feel free to propose a more elegant phraseology. A.K.Nole (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately A.K.Nole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an editor with no substantial editing record in namespace articles and no experience at all in editing mathematics articles. From what other editors have written elsewhere, he seems to be gaming the system against a senior mathematics editor. It will end in tears for him if he persists. In simple words: mind you own business, A.K.Nole. Go and play a video game. Mathsci (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Two points. First, it seems to me that Mathsci is correct and A.K.Nole is simply wrong on the issues. Although I don't have the hard data, it seems to me the vast majority of users do not use Dialog and know MR online under the name MathSciNet. I would simply refer to WP:UNDUE, which even in this minor case seems relevant. Second, there is no need for the "end in tears" comment. This borders WP:PA. In fact, since Mathsci suggests A.K.Nole is a new editor, it also seem to contradict WP:BITE. Mhym (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)