Letters in Mathematical Physics

*Letters in Mathematical Physics*
Discipline	Mathematical physics
Language	English
Edited by	V. Bach; E. Frenkel; M. Kontsevich; D. Kreimer; N.A. Nekrasov; M. Porrati; D. Sternheimer
Publication details
History	1975-present
Publisher	Springer Science+Business Media
Frequency	Monthly
Impact factor	1.819 (2011)
Standard abbreviations;
ISO 4	Lett. Math. Phys.
Indexing
ISSN	0377-9017 (print); 0377-9017 (web);
OCLC no.	37915830
Links
	Journal homepage;

Letters in Mathematical Physics is a peer-reviewed scientific journal in mathematical physics published by Springer Science+Business Media. It publishes letters and longer research articles, occasionally also articles containing topical reviews. It is essentially a platform for the rapid dissemination of short contributions in the field of mathematical physics. In addition, the journal publishes contributions to modern mathematics in fields which have a potential physical application, and developments in theoretical physics which have potential mathematical impact. The editors are Volker Bach, Edward Frenkel, Maxim Kontsevich, Dirk Kreimer, Nikita Nekrasov, Massimo Porrati, and Daniel Sternheimer.

Abstracting and indexing

The following services abstract or index Letters in Mathematical Physics: Academic OneFile, Academic Search, Astrophysics Data System, Chemical Abstracts Service, Current Contents/Physical, Chemical and Earth Sciences, Current Index to Statistics, EBSCO, EI-Compendex, INIS Atomindex, Inspec, Mathematical Reviews, ProQuest, Science Citation Index, Scopus, Summon by Serial Solutions, and Zentralblatt MATH. According to the Journal Citation Reports, its 2011 impact factor is 1.819 and 2012 impact factor is 2.415.

gollark: Probably.

gollark: This is esolangs. We do not do things manually, unless we do.

gollark: I *will* continue use of `they`, for general convenience and the ability to conveniently ignore gender entirely.

gollark: Your criticism², while interesting, ultimately fails. Consider: you have *responded* to my criticism [see screenshot], despite claiming that this would not occur. This is an evident contradiction.It is also clear that, contra to your original claim #2, gollariosity has *increased* as a result of your actions.

gollark: I wholeheartedly disagree with removal of apioderivative words.1. This is dubious. Current research suggests nonlinear apioformic effects, where high use of apio-derived words leads to increased use due to memetic contamination, rather than a conserved/fixed level of apiodensity.2. I am, in any case, inevitable. Additionally, I do not consider this good.3. This appears to contradict #1 somewhat. We have also proven unable to displace the "apioform"/"bee" meme, despite previous attempts. If you want to remove it, come up with better memetics.

External links

Official website

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.