![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Eight years ago
https://www.facebook.com/posic/posts/709895045691999
"I do not care how math. research journals operate, what they do, need or want. These are their problems, and I have enough of mine. The relevant question is what they exist for. They are there to publish mathematics, my work is mathematics, ergo they exist in order to publish my work. I am not working to produce something they would like to publish. I am doing research in mathematics, that's all. They are needed to publish what I've written. If they don't, they are not needed.
Should they have some meaningful suggestions concerning improvement of my writings, we can talk about that. If they just aren't prepared to publish my writings, we have nothing to talk about. For me, it means that they've rejected their mission and raison d'etre, and I can henceforth view them as nonexistent. I don't care whether they are coming out still or are being closed down already."
"I do not care how math. research journals operate, what they do, need or want. These are their problems, and I have enough of mine. The relevant question is what they exist for. They are there to publish mathematics, my work is mathematics, ergo they exist in order to publish my work. I am not working to produce something they would like to publish. I am doing research in mathematics, that's all. They are needed to publish what I've written. If they don't, they are not needed.
Should they have some meaningful suggestions concerning improvement of my writings, we can talk about that. If they just aren't prepared to publish my writings, we have nothing to talk about. For me, it means that they've rejected their mission and raison d'etre, and I can henceforth view them as nonexistent. I don't care whether they are coming out still or are being closed down already."
no subject
On the one hand, we read, in my blog entry: "Should they have some meaningful suggestions concerning improvement of my writings, we can talk about that. If they just aren't prepared to publish my writings, we have nothing to talk about."
On the other hand, the Physical Review did not reject Einstein's paper, this is just not true. Instead, we read, under your link: "Tate returned the manuscript to Einstein on 23 July with a critical review and the mild request that he “would be glad to have [Einstein’s] reaction to the various comments and criticisms the referee has made.” Einstein wrote back on 27 July in high dudgeon, withdrawing the paper and dismissing out of hand the referee’s comments".