2. School Mathematics and National Science Policy: Last rev: 01/09/1999: Proposal for a UC/DC seminar and interaction with the American Mathematical Society UC-DC.pdf

3. Should Journals compensate Referees?, May 2007 Notices of the AMS, Vol.54 (2007), No.6, p.585: Refereeing is a hard task, and too few do it well. We suggest, if there was incentive, more mathematicians would feel it worth developing the high skills that go with quick, quality refereeing. The article solicited the opinions of five colleagues, not listed in the published version. They are -- as given by numbering in the article and in order of the appearance of their comments: #1. Pierre Debes (Lille), #2. Roger Howe (Yale), #3. Robert Guralnick (USC), #4. Ken Ribet (Berkeley) and #5. Moshe Jarden (Tel-Aviv). fried-opinion-refcomp.pdf

4. The Uneasy Relation Between Referees and Editors, October 2007 Notices of the AMS, Vol. 54 (2007), No. 10. I give a URL to Aczel's response. He wrote in regard to "Should Journals compensate Referees?," May 2007 Notices of the AMS. That gave me a chance to respond to a piece of received wisdom that affects the part of the community that cares about journals and getting your papers into them. In his letter he says, "I was always told and was convinced when actively editing journals that the authors, not the referees, are ultimately responsible for errors." aczel-smallresp.html

5. Who Reads Your Papers?: Achievement vs Success, Part I The actual blog entry is at http://mdfried.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/7/. Starting from an article by outgoing editor Andy Magid, my article especially uses changes in an AMS publication, The Research Announcements, to discuss changes in all mathematics journals starting from the middle '80s. This concentrates on the increasing lack of standards in refereeing/editing. It puts much of the blame for this on the large changes in how the community interpreted the job of journal editors. WhoReadsYourPapersI.rtf

6. Classroom Assessment vs Student Satisfaction: an opinion piece for February, 2011, AMS Notices, p. 229. This is a response to the Notices opinion piece Evaluation of our Courses by Steven Zucker, which appeared in the August 2010 issue of the Notices (page 821). Our respective classroom milieus were sufficiently different to call attention to our unanticipated similar conclusions. We agreed that getting the students to work harder is crucial and can't be accomplished just by asking them to do so. Since our students came from differing aptitude groups, we had different approaches to having that happen. My approach gave the UCI students, generally starting with less mental energy than his, more help through the I(nteractive)Q(uestionnaire) technology I developed. This was rather than leaving them doing major wheel spinning on their own. Then, we had agreement: We could document results – mine through the electronic IQ outputs – from our approaches. Yet, our respective teaching evalutions dropped significantly (see SZuckerLetterFeb2011.pdf). SZuckerResponse11-06-10.pdf

7. Lack of Author/Referee Communication, June/July Notices of the AMS (2012). The lament never says the word editor, but the lack of communication it alludes to is precisely the editors not performing an editor's duties. As Who reads your papers? suggests, we wonder who is paying attention to what is entailed in the job of editor. Daws-letterJune-July2012.html