#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Options

# Azimuth project as an option for "author's institution"

A vague thought. On the off-chance that something worth wider dissemination gets generated by someone involved with the project who either doesn't have an affiliation or works for a completely unrelated company which'd be happier not being listed (eg, me), what are the professional academics' views on the viability of listing "The Azimuth Project" as an institution? (Note I'm not saying anyone would have to, just as an option.)

• Options
1.

With John, being the head of the institute, as the obligatory last author of every publication? ;-)

Comment Source:With John, being the head of the institute, as the obligatory last author of every publication? ;-)
• Options
2.
edited April 2011

David wrote:

On the off-chance that something worth wider dissemination gets generated by someone involved with the project who either doesn't have an affiliation or works for a completely unrelated company which'd be happier not being listed (e.g., me), what are the professional academics' views on the viability of listing "The Azimuth Project" as an institution?

Frederik wrote:

With John, being the head of the institute, as the obligatory last author of every publication? ;-)

I like that.

Seriously, I think David's idea is a fine one. Obviously the Azimuth Project has very little 'clout' or 'prestige' as an academic institution now, but I want that to change, and one of several ways to achieve that change is to start listing it as an institution on some good papers that get published. It won't help the papers get published, of course - at least, not at first. But I don't think it will hurt.

Here's a somewhat more serious version of Frederik's suggestion. If anyone (e.g., David) generates something that seems worth publishing, I'll be glad to help. At the very least, I'm good at editing. And if me being listed as a coauthor helps the paper get published - or I feel I've done enough work to deserve to be a coauthor - I'd be glad to be a coauthor.

(However, I'm less interested in being listed as an author than in getting more scientists interested in saving the planet.)

Do you have anything in particular in mind, David?

Lest all this seem like a completely deluded fantasy, it's worth noting that the previous somewhat similar thing I was involved in, the nLab has started a kind of journal: the nJournal. The original idea was that some nLab pages were getting sufficiently polished to deserve being refereed and locked in static form as "articles". Since then the idea seems to have evolved - check out the link for more.

However, at present, I'm less interested in the Azimuth Project becoming a kind of journal, than in developing projects for scientists to work on, some of which may yield publishable material.

Comment Source:David wrote: > On the off-chance that something worth wider dissemination gets generated by someone involved with the project who either doesn't have an affiliation or works for a completely unrelated company which'd be happier not being listed (e.g., me), what are the professional academics' views on the viability of listing "The Azimuth Project" as an institution? Frederik wrote: > With John, being the head of the institute, as the obligatory last author of every publication? ;-) I like that. Seriously, I think David's idea is a fine one. Obviously the Azimuth Project has very little 'clout' or 'prestige' as an academic institution now, but I want that to change, and one of several ways to achieve that change is to start listing it as an institution on some good papers that get published. It won't help the papers get published, of course - at least, not at first. But I don't think it will hurt. Here's a somewhat more serious version of Frederik's suggestion. If anyone (e.g., David) generates something that seems worth publishing, I'll be glad to help. At the very least, I'm good at editing. And if me being listed as a coauthor helps the paper get published - or I feel I've done enough work to _deserve_ to be a coauthor - I'd be glad to be a coauthor. (However, I'm less interested in being listed as an author than in getting more scientists interested in saving the planet.) Do you have anything in particular in mind, David? Lest all this seem like a completely deluded fantasy, it's worth noting that the previous somewhat similar thing I was involved in, the nLab has started a kind of journal: the [nJournal](http://www.math.ntnu.no/~stacey/Mathforge/nForum/?CategoryID=23). The original idea was that some nLab pages were getting sufficiently polished to deserve being refereed and locked in static form as "articles". Since then the idea seems to have evolved - check out the link for more. However, at present, I'm less interested in the Azimuth Project becoming a kind of journal, than in developing projects for scientists to work on, some of which may yield publishable material.
• Options
3.
edited April 2011

I'm actually looking at it the reverse way: it looks like even posting something on the arxiv has an institiution/employer box for the paper's author that needs to be filled in. I think I might be close to getting a job after a while of searching, but it may be with a company for whom it would cause a lot less friction if it was clear anything I put up in my own time has no connection or endorsement with the employer. Now given that the institution information isn't actually used for anything by the publisher (eg, the arxiv), it seems like it ought to be possible to put "Azimuth Project", but I was just wondering if people thought some stick-in-the-mud might rule it disallowed. As to a benefit for the project as a whole, people might be more likely to cite an arxiv (or even a journal) paper than an Azimuth page, although arguably we want to encourage people to cite Azimuth directly.

If I finish off some missing bits and rough edges, I think it would be worth putting a brief description of the simulation software I've been working on onto the arxiv, if only to make it widely known it's available to anyone who might want it. (I have a vague idea that's more science-y, but that needs a lot of thinking to get even to the point of being coherently discussable.)

Comment Source:I'm actually looking at it the reverse way: it looks like even posting something on the arxiv has an institiution/employer box for the paper's author that needs to be filled in. I think I might be close to getting a job after a while of searching, but it may be with a company for whom it would cause a lot less friction if it was clear anything I put up in my own time has no connection or endorsement with the employer. Now given that the institution information isn't actually used for anything by the publisher (eg, the arxiv), it seems like it ought to be possible to put "Azimuth Project", but I was just wondering if people thought some stick-in-the-mud might rule it disallowed. As to a benefit for the project as a whole, people might be more likely to cite an arxiv (or even a journal) paper than an Azimuth page, although arguably we want to encourage people to cite Azimuth directly. If I finish off some missing bits and rough edges, I think it would be worth putting a brief description of the simulation software I've been working on onto the arxiv, if only to make it widely known it's available to anyone who might want it. (I have a vague idea that's more science-y, but that needs a lot of thinking to get even to the point of being coherently discussable.)
• Options
4.
edited April 2011

David wrote:

I'm actually looking at it the reverse way: it looks like even posting something on the arxiv has an institiution/employer box for the paper's author that needs to be filled in.

Oh, okay. There's also the need for an "endorsement". Have you jumped through that hoop yet? If not, I might be able to help, or maybe not: I have the power to endorse people for some areas of math and physics, but maybe not the ones you'd write about:

Endorsers must have authored a certain number of papers within the endorsement domain of an archive or subject class. The number of papers depends on the particular subject area, but has been set so that any active scientist who's been working in her field for a few years should be able to endorse IF her work has been submitted to arXiv and IF she is registered as an author of her papers.

If you're looking for an endorsement, you can find somebody qualified to endorse by clicking on the link titled "Which of these authors are endorsers?" at the bottom of every abstract. You can then find the email addresses of the submitter on the abstract page at the top of the"Submission history" section. It's best for you to find an endorser who (i) you know personally and (ii) is knowledgeable in the subject area of your paper -- a good choice for graduate students would be your thesis advisor or another professor in your department working in your field.

Usually I get requests for endorsement from people working on mathematical physics: crackpots and reaonable who happen not to have academic jobs.

If I finish off some missing bits and rough edges, I think it would be worth putting a brief description of the simulation software I've been working on onto the arxiv, if only to make it widely known it's available to anyone who might want it.

Cool. What does it do?

Comment Source:David wrote: > I'm actually looking at it the reverse way: it looks like even posting something on the arxiv has an institiution/employer box for the paper's author that needs to be filled in. Oh, okay. There's also the need for an "[endorsement](http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement)". Have you jumped through that hoop yet? If not, I might be able to help, or maybe not: I have the power to endorse people for _some_ areas of math and physics, but maybe not the ones you'd write about: > Endorsers must have authored a certain number of papers within the endorsement domain of an archive or subject class. The number of papers depends on the particular subject area, but has been set so that any active scientist who's been working in her field for a few years should be able to endorse IF her work has been submitted to arXiv and IF she is registered as an author of her papers. > If you're looking for an endorsement, you can find somebody qualified to endorse by clicking on the link titled "Which of these authors are endorsers?" at the bottom of every abstract. You can then find the email addresses of the submitter on the abstract page at the top of the"Submission history" section. It's best for you to find an endorser who (i) you know personally and (ii) is knowledgeable in the subject area of your paper -- a good choice for graduate students would be your thesis advisor or another professor in your department working in your field. Usually I get requests for endorsement from people working on mathematical physics: crackpots and reaonable who happen not to have academic jobs. > If I finish off some missing bits and rough edges, I think it would be worth putting a brief description of the simulation software I've been working on onto the arxiv, if only to make it widely known it's available to anyone who might want it. Cool. What does it do?
• Options
5.
edited April 2011

There's also the need for an "endorsement". Have you jumped through that hoop yet? If not, I might be able to help, or maybe not: I have the power to endorse people for some areas of math and physics, but maybe not the ones you'd write about

That's something I'm thinking about. I still know quite a lot of people with academic positions in computer science, but the problem is that the arxiv has never really taken off with CS people (if anything, they tend to just put stuff on citeseer) so they probably won't be able to give arxiv endorsements. I'll think about it some more, but there's no immediate rush.

What does it do?

The idea is it's a tool (technically software library) for supporting certain kinds of experimental mathematics on stochastic discrete-time systems. It's particularly designed for trying to understand how "broad" aspects of a stochastic system as behave as functions of its various "deterministic system" parameters. So in a population dynamics example, what happens as the prey fertility changes and the predator fertility changes: does the function-graph show there's a relationship? One part of the "selling point" would be something designed for doing these kind of simulations on systems with lots of parameters and state variables. The other half is providing very easy semi-automatic function fitting once you've got some function-graph that looks to have a structure. (This is partly to help avoid "eyeball bias", which is when you simulate until you see something that looks like a function you recognise and then switch fully to trying to justify that the curve does have the form you've "seen". This has the problem that you really ought to compare the fit against other functions of similar complexity to get an idea of if your "fit" is noticeably better than other alternatives. But few people do that because no software makes it easy.)

Comment Source:> There's also the need for an "endorsement". Have you jumped through that hoop yet? If not, I might be able to help, or maybe not: I have the power to endorse people for some areas of math and physics, but maybe not the ones you'd write about That's something I'm thinking about. I still know quite a lot of people with academic positions in computer science, but the problem is that the arxiv has never really taken off with CS people (if anything, they tend to just put stuff on citeseer) so they probably won't be able to give arxiv endorsements. I'll think about it some more, but there's no immediate rush. > What does it do? The idea is it's a tool (technically software library) for supporting certain kinds of experimental mathematics on stochastic discrete-time systems. It's particularly designed for trying to understand how "broad" aspects of a stochastic system as behave as functions of its various "deterministic system" parameters. So in a population dynamics example, what happens as the prey fertility changes and the predator fertility changes: does the function-graph show there's a relationship? One part of the "selling point" would be something designed for doing these kind of simulations on systems with lots of parameters and state variables. The other half is providing _very easy_ semi-automatic function fitting once you've got some function-graph that looks to have a structure. (This is partly to help avoid "eyeball bias", which is when you simulate until you see something that looks like a function you recognise and then switch fully to trying to justify that the curve does have the form you've "seen". This has the problem that you really ought to compare the fit against other functions of similar complexity to get an idea of if your "fit" is noticeably better than other alternatives. But few people do that because no software makes it easy.)
• Options
6.

A vague thought. On the off-chance that something worth wider dissemination gets generated by someone involved with the project who either doesn't have an affiliation or works for a completely unrelated company which'd be happier not being listed (eg, me), what are the professional academics' views on the viability of listing "The Azimuth Project" as an institution? (Note I'm not saying anyone would have to, just as an option.)

In my opinion, the Azimuth Project already qualifies as "wider dissemination". You do not get much wider than this. Any one on the planet can read what you publish here or on the wiki. The more quality stuff we put here, the more attention it will get.

Comment Source:>A vague thought. On the off-chance that something worth wider dissemination gets generated by someone involved with the project who either doesn't have an affiliation or works for a completely unrelated company which'd be happier not being listed (eg, me), what are the professional academics' views on the viability of listing "The Azimuth Project" as an institution? (Note I'm not saying anyone would have to, just as an option.) In my opinion, the Azimuth Project already qualifies as "wider dissemination". You do not get much wider than this. Any one on the planet can read what you publish here or on the wiki. The more quality stuff we put here, the more attention it will get.
• Options
7.

Anyone can read stuff on the wiki or forum, but as far as I can tell few people do (yet). I could be wrong, but my vague guess is that about 100 times more people will read something if you put it on the blog. So, if anyone here wants the world to know about something, please write a blog article about it. The mechanism is set up and ready to go:

Blog articles in progress

Just announce the article here on the Forum and I'll look at it, and if it seems like a reasonable thing I'll post it.

Examples:

News about environmental and energy issues.

Technical questions.

Explanations of scientific or technical matters.

Announcements of software that one has written.

Comment Source:Anyone _can_ read stuff on the wiki or forum, but as far as I can tell few people _do_ (yet). I could be wrong, but my vague guess is that about 100 times more people will read something if you put it on the blog. So, if anyone here wants the world to know about something, please write a blog article about it. The mechanism is set up and ready to go: [[Blog articles in progress]] Just announce the article here on the Forum and I'll look at it, and if it seems like a reasonable thing I'll post it. Examples: News about environmental and energy issues. Technical questions. Explanations of scientific or technical matters. Announcements of software that one has written.
• Options
8.

Just announce the article here on the Forum and I'll look at it

I was wondering about that. I might like to turn some of the stuff I'm doing with the discrete Burgers equation into an article for the blog, but wasn't sure the best way to go about it. Now I have no excuses :)

Comment Source:>Just announce the article here on the Forum and I'll look at it I was wondering about that. I might like to turn some of the stuff I'm doing with the discrete Burgers equation into an article for the blog, but wasn't sure the best way to go about it. Now I have no excuses :)
• Options
9.

Eric: you can follow the pattern on Blog articles in progress, which is to have an entry on that page linked to a discussion here on the Forum and a page on the Wiki.

My 'network theory' posts are trying to drift back and forth between general theory and applications to population biology and (later, not yet) biochemistry and systems ecology. This is supposed to lure mathematicians into work that's relevant to environmental issues. That's one of the main goals of the Azimuth Blog. The Burgers equation by itself doesn't have much to do with environmental issues. But the Burgers equation becomes relevant to environmental issues when Tim starts using it as a warmup for modeling the Navier-Stokes equation. So, it would be good to start out with an overview of that aspect before diving into the material you're working on. Or, you could ask Tim or me to help with that overview. One thing about the wiki-blog combination is that people can collaborate on blog articles. Of course you might not want that. If you want to discuss the Burgers equation in a 'purely mathematical' way without any reference to environmental issues, the nCafe may be a better place, and it's easy to do a guest post there, too.

Comment Source:Eric: you can follow the pattern on [[Blog articles in progress]], which is to have an entry on that page linked to a discussion here on the Forum and a page on the Wiki. My 'network theory' posts are trying to drift back and forth between general theory and applications to population biology and (later, not yet) biochemistry and systems ecology. This is supposed to lure mathematicians into work that's relevant to environmental issues. That's one of the main goals of the Azimuth Blog. The Burgers equation _by itself_ doesn't have much to do with environmental issues. But the Burgers equation becomes relevant to environmental issues when Tim starts using it as a warmup for modeling the Navier-Stokes equation. So, it would be good to start out with an overview of that aspect before diving into the material you're working on. Or, you could ask Tim or me to help with that overview. One thing about the wiki-blog combination is that people can collaborate on blog articles. Of course you might not want that. If you want to discuss the Burgers equation in a 'purely mathematical' way without any reference to environmental issues, the nCafe may be a better place, and it's easy to do a guest post there, too.