*Concerns of Young Mathematicians* Volume 2 Issue 18 May 11, 1994 An electronically distributed digest for discussions of the issues of concern to mathematicians at the beginning of their careers. PLEASE FORWARD TO ANY POTENTIALLY INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS Please, direct submissions and questions to Curtis Bennett cbennet@andy.bgsu.edu , editor for the month of October. Next issue: Wednesday, May 18 Editor for May: Curtis Bennett cbennet@andy.bgsu.edu Editor for June: To subscribe: Send mail to Charles Yeomans at cyeomans@s.ms.uky.edu Back issues and other information are available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ms.uky.edu, in pub3/mailing.lists/ymn-list. Table of Contents Item # Title ------ ----- 1 Editor's notes 2 More on Joint Papers 3 More on the Refereeing Question 4 Article on Rejection Letters 5 Curtis Bennett Job Survey 6 Closing Credits ___________________________________________________________________ Item #1 Editor's notes: Like the last time I edited, I will include my own postings as part of the general portion of the Concerns and leave this note for more general thoughts. We have a few responses to the Q&A posts from last issue, and an interesting article tracked down by Ed Aboufadel. Also, I would like to conduct a non-scientific survey of how subscribers have fared on the job market this year. Judging by past performance, we can expect results sometime in September (I hope). It looks like we will be publishing once every two weeks for the summer. Already submissions have slowed down seriously, and I well know that the summer is likely to be very slow. Curtis Bennett Bowling Green State University cbennet@andy.bgsu.edu _______________________________________________________________ Item #2 More on Joint Papers Joint papers never have exactly equal contributions by all authors. It seems, therefore, that some authors will have something to gain, while others will have something to lose. To what extent is this true? Professional decorum and evaluation of joint papers is a real blur. My own view is that if there are multiple names on a manuscript, then all those people made a contribution. I realize this is not always true, but it's a fairly safe working hypothesis. How joint work is viewed when it comes to evaluation (= $$ and promotion and tenure) runs the full range. There are very good mathematicians who write only joint papers and there are others that perpetually go it alone. In general, I think that if there is a junior-senior tandem and the senior person has name recognition, it probably benefits the junior author (of course, some are going to say that Joe Senior had all of the ideas, etc., but this is generally a minority view). Another aspect of joint work that should not be overlooked is that such work indicates the parties involved can actually work with other people - this is a plus. Overall, I don't really see how anyone loses in a joint piece of work. A much more complicated issue is when co-workers decide whether or not a piece of work should actually be authored by more than one person. -- Richard Phillips _______________________________________________________________ Item #3 More on the Refereeing Question I read the latest CYM with interest, not least because it containted some of my dulcet words. I write because I'm concerned about some of the advice given for the circumstance when you are refereeing a paper that contains results similar to ones that you have developed. I know of a circumstance where a guy rejected a paper and then contacted the author and suggested that they write a joint paper. When he was found out he was made to wear the scarlet letter for life. No kidding. Now nobody suggested this in your newsletter, but one must be careful. Of course the example I just cited is extreme, and none of the writers in the newsletter suggested this sort of behavior. I think that a referee should under no circumstances contact the author of a paper he/she is refereeing. One always has the option of contacting the editor, but my guess is that one won't get much satisfaction since most editors won't know what to do and/or won't want to be bothered. Certainly most editors won't want to get involved in a situation of suggesting to the guy who submitted the paper that he make it a joint paper. It sounds like a Mandarin system, but the way this has often been handled in the past is that the person doing the refereeing approaches some senior guy---a friend---and asks him to act as go-between. One of the shortcomings of the system we have is that we don't have a system. I'm sorry that I cannot offer a more cut and dried solution for this circumstance. The main point I want to make is that this is a tricky situation. Be careful. Steve Krantz _______________________________________________________________ Item #4 Article on Rejection Letters From the Associated Press: Turned Down? That Letter May Earn A Prize Charlottesville, VA -- Business student Scott Caudill received a rejection letter from a computer manufacturer that really stung. It thanked him for an interview he never even had. But it wasn't a big enough gaffe to win the second annual "Ugly Rejection Letter Contest." That dubious honor went to a letter Tom Maguire received froma financial services firm. The letter said he wouldn't be hired but, "We hope you will consider referring others to us as applicants for employment or as clients." The contest, conducted by the University of Virginia's McIntire School of Commerce, helps ease the tension that is particular to this time of year. "The idea of the whole thing is to say, 'You're not alone,'" Maguire said. The contest, which ran throughout the spring, received letters with grammatical errors, misspellings, gender confusion and nonsense. A panel of judges sorted throught the "don't call us" mail. In the spirit of the season and the job market, a university hangout offered a free drink for every five rejection letters presented by a student. (thanks to Ed Aboufadel for tracking this down -- ed.) _______________________________________________________________ Item #5 Curtis Bennett Job Survey I would like to do a survey on how subscribers to the YMN have done on the job market this year. This may give us an early idea as to how bad the market has been this year, although it will in no way be a scientific survey. If you could send me email answering the following questions, I would appreciate it. I will try and tabulate results as soon as possible, but I don't expect to find the time very soon. Thanks, Curtis Bennett cbennet@andy.bgsu.edu 1. Did you apply for jobs this year? (If yes, please answer the rest of the questions.) 2. What is your field? 3. How many schools did you apply to? 4. How many industry/government positions did you apply to? 5. How many on-sight interviews did you have? 6. How many offers did you receive? (if you received no offers, please skip to question 8). 7. If you received an offer, when was it made? 8. What kind of position is it? (grad student, 1-year, 2-year, part-time, tenure track, etc.) 9. What was your position for 1993-1994? (grad student, 1-year, 2-year, etc.) 10. Please include anything else you feel might be interesting. _______________________________________________________________ Item #6 Closing Credits The Young Mathematicians' Network is administered by: Charles Yeomans cyeomans@s.ms.uky.edu Mark Winstead winstead@euclid.ucsd.edu Vic Perera vperera@silver.ucs.indiana.edu Franklin Mendivil mendivil@math.gatech.edu Stephen Kennedy kennedy@stolaf.edu Neil Calkin calkin@math.gatech.edu Curtis Bennett cbennet@andy.bgsu.edu Jeff Adams adams@bright.uoregon.edu Edward Aboufadel aboufade@scus1.ctstateu.edu Frank Arlinghaus frank@math.ysu.edu Matt Hudelson hudelson@math.washington.edu _______________________________________________________________ End of Journal -- Next week: The Discussion Continues