# Welcome to PhysicsOverflow public $\beta$ !

+ 5 like - 0 dislike
10937 views

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

After a succesful private $\beta$, PhysicsOverflow is finally public!

The purpose of the public beta is mainly to do with the reviews section - the number of reviews is still very small, and submission re-categorisation is still underway. Local hosting of submissions will also be eventually achieved.

It is to be noted that the current distribution of topics reflects the current user expertise, rather than the ultimately intended figures.

Despite the word "beta" used for this phase, PhysicsOverflow will not shut itself down for low traffic figures.

recategorized Jan 16, 2016

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

## Help promote Physics Overflow

Please upvote our 2017 community promotion ad proposal on Physics SE and on Academia SE, if you are an participate on Stack Exchange or MathOverflow and like PhysicsOverflow.

### Social Media

• Post on Google+ and other social networks etc.
• Write a blog post on Physics Overflow if you run a physics blog.
• Send emails to people you know, or if there is a mailing list at your institute, please send emails to everyone on the list.

### Pamphlet

You may also paste this PhysicsOverflow pamphlet on a university noticeboard or something.

answered Apr 3, 2014 by (1,950 points)
edited Feb 2 by Dilaton

Thanks @ArnoldNeumaier!

Thanks Arnold, this is great :-).

And it seems to be  a nice physics group ...

Thanks Arnold!

On a related note, I created a Google Plus page for PhysicsOverflow a few hours ago: PhysicsOverflow-plus.

The purpose, as stated, is to:

A new Google Plus page for PhysicsOverflow, intended to be a place where great Physics questions on PhysicsOverflow can be posted, and where people can discuss PhysicsOverflow in a place besides meta, i.e. a less polished feature request could be more suitable here than on meta. ﻿

This is also done by MathOverflow.

Huh, the link does not work ...

@Dilaton Sorry, accidentally put a full stop in the link: https://plus.google.com/+PhysicsoverflowOrg-plus/posts ;

I have added a link to PhysicsOverflow at the nlab entry on math blogs.

This is nice, thanks !
I am not sure if it would be worthwhile to mention that (conversely to Physics SE for example) we are welcoming mathematical topics useful for and used by physicists too ?

@Dilaton Sure, I'll add that as soon as possible.

It would be very helpful if some PO members who have an SE account could help by upvoting our community promotion ad on Physics SE ... ;-)

the 2015 image is still there below the 2016 one!

@Arnold that isn't the 2015 image, it's just a smaller version of the 2016 one.

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

## Wait for the "Reviews" section

Update: The reviews section has been released!

The "Reviews" section is for discussing physics journal papers, arxiv papers, papers in conference proceedings, conference talks, important seminars, and so on. It is not launched yet; however, when it is finally launched, that will be when Physics Overflow leaves it's public beta.

Here's what's planned so far for the "Reviews" category:

• All physics papers will be imported from the ArXiV by a bot through the OAI-PMH of ArXiV. What will appear here on Physics Overflow is a just a link to the paper.
• Papers or other material can be imported manually through a plugin or maybe directly asking a question in the "Reviews" section. Again, what will appear here is simply a link to the paper or material.
• Users with editing priviledges can edit the post (others can suggest edits) to summarise the findings of the paper.
• There will be a terminology change from Question to Submission.
• There will be a terminology change from Answer to Review.
• Users can write referee reports about the accuracy of the paper by writing a review.
• Users can suggest papers to cite, or point out papers that have done similar work in the comments (no terminology change for this one).
• There will be two voting criteria; originality and accuracy for voting on the submission, but voting on the reviews will be the same.
• When an author comes here to defend the work, then he would be able to claim authorship for the paper through a thread "Paper Authorship Claims", after which an administrator can change the author of the post to this author.
• Since there can be multiple authors for a paper, in the new type of questions (submissions), we will have not only two voting criteria but possibility for multiple authors to a question who can edit it freely and gain the complete reputation (i.e. the reputation is not divided among them, but each gets the full reputation, because another author helping to defend must not reduce the other's reputation) for the paper.
• Since there are two voting criteria for submissions, there will be an additional score displayed simply for display purposes, calculated by $y= \mathfrak{S} \exp\left( \sqrt[3]{\frac{\mathfrak{\times}}{5}} \right)$ where $y$ is the display score, $\mathfrak{S}$ is the accuracy score and $\mathfrak{\times}$ is the originality score as voted by the voters. The rep gain by each author is $x=5y$
• People can advertise certain submissions using a small fee of around 5 to 10 dollars which will pay expenses such as our hosting fees, and if polarkernel is fine with it, paying him some money for his dedicated help. As we are not a for-profit, we will not use this money for anything else.

The following is not yet planned, but we may have a vague idea about it:

• Once the reviews section is stable, we could think of locally hosting contributions, if it does not take up too much space and become expensive.
• We could even think of locally editing contributions having a LaTeX editor, with our own class file and everything, just for the reviews section so that the TeX file is saved and a PDF file is generated for viewing.
• We could use an existing Open Source LaTeX editor like ShareLaTeX (github repository)
• Those who often summarise papers by editing the questions can be manually awarded a reputation bounty, since there is otherwise no incentive to summarise papers.
answered Apr 3, 2014 by (1,950 points)
edited Apr 2, 2015

This now exists for some time, more or less as planned. Please contribute informative reviews!

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

## Help Moderate Physics Overflow

 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): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: 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$\hbar$ysicsOve$\varnothing$flowThen 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.