Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

123 submissions , 104 unreviewed
3,547 questions , 1,198 unanswered
4,551 answers , 19,358 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
411 active unimported users
More ...

Use of PACS2010 classification scheme for tagging?

+ 0 like - 8 dislike
64 views

Since this is a research-oriented site, why not use the standard classification and tagging system for research physicists and astronomers?...

Also, for paper-specific posts, I humbly submit the following suggestion.

The goal of TP SE was to make this the default site - (or amongst the default sites) - for research (theoretical and mathematical) physicists to post and respond to questions. So, I think, adopting the STANDARD classification / tagging scheme from the outset might help us maintain our objective and perspective as we - hopefully - gain new members, et cetera.

Ref: PACS2010

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Sep 15, 2011 in SE.TP.discussion by UGPhysics (155 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Mar 7, 2014 by dimension10
Truthfully, I'm not a fan of PACS, mostly because of the level of detail, and I think it adds in a bit of ambiguity as it is easy to nit-pick over which exact category something belongs to. Also, it changes periodically. That said, restricting ourselves to 2 digit PACS codes (the top two levels) would not be so bad. It'd still require looking up, though.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Would you mind moving your suggestion about questions on papers to a separate question, so it can be judged by itself?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
+1 "... restricting ourselves to 2 digit PACS codes (the top two levels) would not be so bad"... Good idea! I would definitely second that.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I think the PACS numbers are pretty useless -- they don't exist for a lot of topics, other topics have ridiculously detailed breakdowns, and the whole thing has very little similarity to how anyone would choose to classify their work, I think. Anyway, does anyone ever use them? I only see them when I submit to a journal and I just pick the broadest possible thing because it's a pain to figure out the right choice.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Does anyone even know the PACS scheme by heart? I always have to look it up.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

1 Answer

+ 14 like - 0 dislike

Frankly, I think using PACS codes would be a bad idea. They are opaque, meaning that you essentially need to look up the code to know what it means, and they are overly detailed meaning that we would have a very high number of top level tags. To be honest, I don't even remember the codes I've used on my own papers.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Sep 15, 2011 by Joe Fitzsimons (3,555 points) [ no revision ]
(This is an open forum which is Google search indexed: there will be many visitors apart from the intended audience-- and many more posts which wouldn't fit with the site's target audience. ... Generally, physics forums inevitably tend to attract questions that would not fit with the purpose of the site.) --- You can trust me on this. I've visited a good number of forums to know this firsthand.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I agree. Frankly, I think most physicists find these codes a bit of a pain. And SPIRES stuff isn't relevant to many areas of physics anyway.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
(I.e. You have to be FAR more rigorous about moderation than for sites like MO. And since there's no central administrator [as in MO], the effort needed to 'moderate' would be much greater.)

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Probably. ... But we should follow some sort of already-standardised system (i.e. arXiv at the minimum (-- but, my suggestion is inSPIRE for hep/math-ph + some others for the other areas)): it would a) make us more appealing to professional / practicing physicists from the outset- (and much more likely to get the sort of user-base we're seeking), b) forum-management more maintainable - short-, medium-, and if we stay around long enough, definitely long-term (i.e. less tagging / re-tagging, etc.), and c) -(in regards to my proposal for integrating papers into the system)- make it consistent...

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
... The reason for my proposal is: a good tagging system / structure will aid in later archiving, searching through, et cetera the posts. -- Plus, - and maybe more importantly - if you make the 'entryway' to posting here somewhat esoteric in nature, you can avoid a lot of off-topic posts from the outset. ... The "crackpot" factor - as everyone knows - is definitely higher for physics-related posts than for maths. .. We should factor that into consideration. ... Having a develop-as-we-go system may well end up degrading the quality of the site in the longer-term.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@UGPhysics, that argumentation won't hold. Mathematics has a standard Classification of subjects as well (MSC2010 for example), yet MO doesn't use it and still attracts alot of professional Mathematicians

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
... with that too.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOv$\varnothing$rflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...