A Twitter conversation about Math Ed on the arXiv
On July 27, 2013, I created a petition on Change.org to get math.ED – Mathematics Education added as a category on the arXiv. You can find the petition here. At present, there is no dedicated category on the arXiv for math ed and I’d like to change this. If you want to know how all this got started, check out this post.
The last time I checked, we were just shy of 200 signatures on the petition. My initial goal was 50. The support has been quite impressive. Most of the signatures are from the United States, but there are others from around the world. As far as I can tell, support is coming from people with interests in math ed, physics ed, STEM ed, ed tech, math, stats, operations research, secondary education, and more. I even recognized at least one philosopher. Thankfully, it seems we have the support of a few prominent math ed researchers (e.g., Alan Schoenfeld), which I think is crucial for this to really work.
There have been a few developments with the folks over at the arXiv and I’ll share the current state of affairs in another post. In the meantime, I thought you might enjoy a conversation that happened on Twitter between myself (@danaernst) and Republic of Math (@republicofmath). Matt Boelkins (@MattBoelkins) chimes in at the end, too. The conversation wasn’t linear, but I’ve done my best to list the tweets in an order that makes sense.
I'm not in favor of arXiv including math.ED – as a math educator I'm aware math educators don't much cite each other http://t.co/QWuLlKd8yr
— Republic of Math (@republicofmath) July 31, 2013
@republicofmath really? Can you explain? I’m open minded?
— Dana C. Ernst (@danaernst) July 31, 2013
@danaernst IMO math education researchers are not as willing as would be productive to learn from each other. Little sense of community.
— Republic of Math (@republicofmath) August 1, 2013
@republicofmath but don’t you think things like the arXiv could help?
— Dana C. Ernst (@danaernst) August 1, 2013
@republicofmath also, there are plenty of folks like me with interests in math and math ed. SoTL would fit.
— Dana C. Ernst (@danaernst) August 1, 2013
@danaernst Math education, as a field, would be improved enormously, IMO, if physics folk moved in.
— Republic of Math (@republicofmath) August 1, 2013
@republicofmath that sounds great, too! How do we make that happen?
— Dana C. Ernst (@danaernst) August 1, 2013
@danaernst I'm Associate Editor for a prominent math education journal & reviewer for well-known journals. Most papers I review are crap.
— Republic of Math (@republicofmath) August 1, 2013
@republicofmath that’s not good. Perhaps a different problem altogether.
— Dana C. Ernst (@danaernst) August 1, 2013
@republicofmath would your journal be ok with articles posted to arXiv? Double blind review?
— Dana C. Ernst (@danaernst) August 1, 2013
@danaernst I do not think it's a good use of resources to have http://t.co/WzTTBaPBYg filled with poorly composed math ed papers.
— Republic of Math (@republicofmath) August 1, 2013
@republicofmath but it’s ok to have them in for profit journals? ;)
— Dana C. Ernst (@danaernst) August 1, 2013
@danaernst Journal I'm Assoc Ed for would be OK with articles posted to arXiv. But JRME isn't – won't even allow papers on author website
— Republic of Math (@republicofmath) August 1, 2013
@republicofmath yeah, that’s a bummer. I hope that approach changes soon.
— Dana C. Ernst (@danaernst) August 1, 2013
@danaernst If http://t.co/WzTTBaPBYg had a version of crowd reviewing, as has been suggested, hopefully quality would rise to top.
— Republic of Math (@republicofmath) August 1, 2013
Of course not – which is why journals have gate-keepers @danaernst but it’s ok to have them in for profit journals? ;)
— Republic of Math (@republicofmath) August 1, 2013
@republicofmath but these same gate-keeper approved articles could find themselves on arXiv, too. I think that’s a good thing.
— Dana C. Ernst (@danaernst) August 1, 2013
@danaernst Think math ed needs to lift its collective research game before http://t.co/WzTTBaPBYg – which takes $$ to run – opens to it.
— Republic of Math (@republicofmath) August 1, 2013
@republicofmath OK, that’s fair. Yet, I’m not sure the quality of math papers is that much higher.
— Dana C. Ernst (@danaernst) August 1, 2013
@danaernst It's a strong feeling I have that math ed research is disjointed and bitchy.
— Republic of Math (@republicofmath) August 1, 2013
@danaernst Having reviewed math papers in a previous life my experience is even mediocre ones were better than many math ed papers.
— Republic of Math (@republicofmath) August 1, 2013
@danaernst In favor of open-source "journals" or repositories where crowd reviewing can occur. Just disappointed in math ed research.
— Republic of Math (@republicofmath) August 1, 2013
@danaernst On that note I think a beer is in order!
— Republic of Math (@republicofmath) August 1, 2013
@republicofmath @danaernst Interesting conversation between you yesterday re arXiv + math ed. Thanks for sharing it.
— Matt Boelkins (@MattBoelkins) August 1, 2013
Guess I'm a little jaded. I think @danaernst is doing a great job. @MattBoelkins Interesting conversation yesterday re arXiv + math ed.
— Republic of Math (@republicofmath) August 1, 2013
Math ed folks: @danaernst could do with some support in his plan to get MathEd recognized by http://t.co/WzTTBaPBYg http://t.co/uZclgkjFd6
— Republic of Math (@republicofmath) August 1, 2013