[DMCA-Activists] Fwd: Direct Free Publishing

[Seth Johnson]

(Forwarded from New Yorkers for Fair Use Discussion list.  Website text
pasted below.  -- Seth)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [fairuse-talk] direct free publishing
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:53:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Sulzberger <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden

http://semantics-online.org/geek/2003/12/poincar_perelman_1_million_and_open_access

oo--JS.

----------------------------------------------------------- 
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
address@hidden with a subject of: unsubscribe fairuse-talk
List info at http://www.nyfairuse.org/lists.xhtml

---

> http://semantics-online.org/geek/2003/12/poincar_perelman_1_million_and_open_access


Poincaré, Perelman, $1 Million, and Open Access

The Boston Globe has an article today about Perelman’s proof of the Poincaré
Conjecture. The initial story is somewhat old — see Devlin’s commentary here
and here and also this Slate piece on the fact that Perelman is not that
young. The Globe article today mentions that “at two conferences held during
the last two weeks in California, a range of specialists scrutinized
Perelman’s work, trying to grasp all the details and look for potential
flaws.”

What struck me was this:

     After a decade of isolation in St. Petersburg, over the last year
Grigory Perelman posted a few papers to an online archive. Although he has
no known plans to publish them, his work has sent shock waves through what
is usually a quiet field. … 

     If Perelman really has proved the so-called Poincaré Conjecture, as
many believe he has, he will become known as one of the great mathematicians
of the 21st century and will be first in line for a $1 million prize offered
by the Clay Mathematics Institute in Cambridge.

     Colleagues say Perelman, who did not attend the California conferences
and did not respond to a request for comment, couldn’t care less about the
money, and doesn’t want the attention. Known for his single-minded devotion
to research, he seldom appears in public; he answers e-mails from
mathematicians, but no one else. … 

     If the proof is vetted, the Clay Mathematics Institute may face a
difficult choice. Its rules state that any solution must be published two
years before being considered for the $1 million prize. Perelman’s work
remains unpublished and he appears indifferent to the money.

Of course, Perelman’s work has been published:

     Perelman, G. “The Entropy Formula for the Ricci Flow and Its Geometric
Application” 11 Nov 2002. http://arXiv.org/abs/math.DG/0211159/. 
     Perelman, G. “Ricci Flow with Surgery on Three-Manifolds” 10 Mar 2003.
http://arXiv.org/abs/math.DG/0303109/. 

Everyone who matters has read the papers, semester-long seminars are being
held to vet the proof, conferences are organized to discuss the work. What’s
missing?

The official rules of the Clay Mathematics Institute include these
requirements:

     Before consideration, a proposed solution must be published in a
refereed mathematics journal of world wide repute, and it must also have
general acceptance in the mathematics community two years after. Following
this two-year waiting period, the SAB — the Scientific Advisory Board of the
Clay Mathematics Institute — will decide whether a solution merits detailed
consideration. In the affirmative case, the SAB will constitute a special
advisory committee, which will include at least one SAB member and at least
two non-SAB members who are experts in the area of the problem. The SAB will
seek advice to determine potential non-SAB members who are unbiased,
internationally-recognized mathematical experts in the area of the problem.
As part of this procedure, each proposed solution under consideration must
be verified by one or more members of this special advisory committee.

     The special advisory committee will report within a reasonable time to
the SAB. Based on this report and possible further investigation, the SAB
will make a recommendation to the Directors. The SAB may recommend the award
of a prize to one person. The SAB may recommend that a particular prize be
divided among multiple solvers of a problem or their heirs. The SAB will pay
special attention to the question of whether a prize solution depends
crucially on insights published prior to the solution under consideration.
The SAB may (but need not) recommend recognition of such prior work in the
prize citation, and it may (but need not) recommend the inclusion of the
author of prior work in the award.

With all this vetting and the reliance on “general acceptance in the
mathematics community”, what purpose could the publication in a refereed
journal possibly have? It would seem that the Clay Institute needs to get
with the times. Open Access is the way real science works.