Checking correctness in mathematical peer review.

Mathematics is often treated as different from other disciplines, since arguments in the field rely on deductive proof rather than empirical evidence as in the natural sciences. A mathematical paper can therefore, at least in principle, be replicated simply by reading it. While this distinction is sometimes taken as the basis to claim that the results in mathematics are therefore certain, mathematicians themselves know that the published literature contains many mistakes. Reading a proof is not easy, and checking whether an argument constitutes a proof is surprisingly difficult. This article uses peer review of submissions to mathematics journals as a site where referees are explicitly concerned with checking whether a paper is correct and therefore could be published. Drawing on 95 qualitative interviews with mathematics journal editors, as well as a collection of more than 100 referee reports and other correspondence from peer review processes, this article establishes that while mathematicians acknowledge that peer review does not guarantee correctness, they still value it. For mathematicians, peer review 'adds a bit of certainty', especially in contrast to papers only submitted to preprint servers such as arXiv. Furthermore, during peer review there can be disagreements not just regarding the importance of a result, but also whether a particular argument constitutes a proof or not (in particular, whether there are substantial gaps in the proof). Finally, the mathematical community is seen as important when it comes to accepting arguments as proofs and assigning certainty to results. Publishing an argument in a peer-reviewed journal is often only the first step in having a result accepted. Results get accepted if they stand the test of time and are used by other mathematicians.

A collaborative robotic uterine positioning system for laparoscopic hysterectomy: Design and experiments.

BACKGROUND: Uterus manipulation is a lengthy and tedious task that is usually performed by a human assistant during laparoscopic hysterectomy. Note that the performance of the assistant may decrease with time. Moreover, under this approach, the primary surgeon does not have direct control over the uterus position. He/she can only verbally request the assistant to place it on a particular configuration. METHODS: A robotic system composed of a 3 degrees-of-freedom uterine positioner is developed to assist in changing configuration of the uterus during laparoscopic hysterectomy. The developed system has a remote centre of motion structure; independently controlling the uterus motion with one joint at the time is allowed. RESULTS: From the lab experiments, it is found that the robot shows better performance in retaining the uterus position and shows quicker response to the surgeon's instruction. Cadaver studies have been conducted to evaluate the feasibility of the robot. The robot was also applied to real patients in a clinical study. CONCLUSIONS: The robot is capable of assisting in uterus manipulation during laparoscopic hysterectomy. However, its user friendliness can be improved by simplifying the docking procedure. Furthermore, a more ergonomic user interface is desired.

Video Gaming as Practical Accomplishment: Ethnomethodology, Conversation Analysis, and Play.

Accounts of video game play developed from an ethnomethodological and conversation analytic (EMCA) perspective remain relatively scarce. This study collects together an emerging, if scattered, body of research which focuses on the material, practical "work" of video game players. The study offers an example-driven explication of an EMCA perspective on video game play phenomena. The materials are arranged as a "tactical zoom." We start very much "outside" the game, beginning with a wide view of how massive-multiplayer online games are played within dedicated gaming spaces; here, we find multiple players, machines, and many different sorts of activities going on (besides playing the game). Still remaining somewhat distanced from the play of the game itself, we then take a closer look at the players themselves by examining a notionally simpler setting involving pairs taking part in a football game at a games console. As we draw closer to the technical details of play, we narrow our focus further still to examine a player and spectator situated "at the screen" but jointly analyzing play as the player competes in an online first-person shooter. Finally, we go "inside" the game entirely and look at the conduct of avatars on-screen via screen recordings of a massively multiplayer online game. Having worked through specific examples, we provide an elaboration of a selection of core topics of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis that is used to situate some of the unstated orientations in the presentation of data fragments. In this way, recurrent issues raised in the fragments are shown as coherent, interconnected phenomena. In closing, we suggest caution regarding the way game play phenomena have been analyzed in this study, while remarking on challenges present for the development of further EMCA-oriented research on video game play.

Methodological troubles as problems and phenomena: ethnomethodology and the question of 'method' in the social sciences.

Across the disciplinary frontiers of the social sciences, studies by social scientists treating their own investigative practices as sites of empirical inquiry have proliferated. Most of these studies have been retrospective, historical, after-the-fact reconstructions of social scientific studies mixing interview data with the (predominantly textual) traces that investigations leave behind. Observational studies of in situ work in social science research are, however, relatively scarce. Ethnomethodology was an early and prominent attempt to treat social science methodology as a topic for sociological investigations and, in this paper, we draw out what we see as its distinctive contribution: namely, a focus on troubles as features of the in situ, practical accomplishment of method, in particular, the way that research outcomes are shaped by the local practices of investigators in response to the troubles they encounter along the way. Based on two case studies, we distinguish methodological troubles as problems and methodological troubles as phenomena to be studied, and suggest the latter orientation provides an alternate starting point for addressing social scientists' investigative practices.

The materiality of mathematics: presenting mathematics at the blackboard.

Sociology has been accused of neglecting the importance of material things in human life and the material aspects of social practices. Efforts to correct this have recently been made, with a growing concern to demonstrate the materiality of social organization, not least through attention to objects and the body. As a result, there have been a plethora of studies reporting the social construction and effects of a variety of material objects as well as studies that have explored the material dimensions of a diversity of practices. In different ways these studies have questioned the Cartesian dualism of a strict separation of 'mind' and 'body'. However, it could be argued that the idea of the mind as immaterial has not been entirely banished and lingers when it comes to discussing abstract thinking and reasoning. The aim of this article is to extend the material turn to abstract thought, using mathematics as a paradigmatic example. This paper explores how writing mathematics (on paper, blackboards, or even in the air) is indispensable for doing and thinking mathematics. The paper is based on video recordings of lectures in formal logic and investigates how mathematics is presented at the blackboard. The paper discusses the iconic character of blackboards in mathematics and describes in detail a number of inscription practices of presenting mathematics at the blackboard (such as the use of lines and boxes, the designation of particular regions for specific mathematical purposes, as well as creating an 'architecture' visualizing the overall structure of the proof). The paper argues that doing mathematics really is 'thinking with eyes and hands' (Latour 1986). Thinking in mathematics is inextricably interwoven with writing mathematics.