coincidental ninja edit
i didnt put it there for you-hahaa
@hubcapsignstop
Itâs a great direction. I am worried about two things for publication:
- Exactly what you posted. Itâs a great improvement.
- Reproducible experiments. Even if I work hard on a paper with reasonable results that pass inspection or better, it may be difficult or impossible to reproduce the results. Some reasons it would be difficult are the software is hard to run or the equipment is expensive. Some reasons it would be impossible are the software is proprietary, the equipment is too expensive or perhaps not described in enough detail.
I continue with software only because in the open source model of peer review, a publications should require all software to be published as well. This is not true for much of NASA published research, even though they do an excellent job of making sure all papers are freely available.
Reporducibility is a chronic problem. Sometimes not every nuance is able to be recorded or detected and such influences remain unknown even to the researcher. Sometimes an experiment will work the first time, and never work again mysteriously (if the wording of this sentence seems curious let me know). Itâs usually left up to the researcher whether or not to report this (and the standards are different in different fields). If the results are very pertinent it may get published with an asterisk. Way too much unreprodicuble research already gets published under the current model (with no asterisk-often with inflated results; see links below). This exact problem was addressed in the final link I posted above. The experiment was unable to be reporduced using the listed conditions. The fine-tuning was worked out via correspondence between bloggers and an OG author (MacaRthur fellow) and they eventually ended up finding some previously unknown aspects to the reaction mechanism. It worked so well, that the bloggers actually considered publishing a paper on the findings using their online psuedonyms! Interestingly, I think they decided against it. hahaa
Look at what many expert think of the system they, themselves are forced to assimilate into (hilarious):
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
http://www.brocku.ca/mathematics-science/departments-and-centres/chemistry/faculty/Hudlicky/Synlett-2010,18,2701.pdf
With the capablities of online publishing it should not be an issue to increase the rigor involved to insure honest publishing. All raw/unporcessed data could be required for submission as supporting information (prepublication reviewers almost never look at this stuff anyways).
If you are using a certain software (proprietary or not), the type of software should be listed. It is not unusual for some equipment to be unreasonably expensive to obtain. That is just part of technology and research. Some solutions are to buy time on the closest machine available at a research institution (I believe even with NASA instruments in outerspace you can purchase time on the machines). If some component of the research is being withheld due to patent reasons that may preclude it from publication, typically researchers are hesitant to publish around things not secured by patent.
You touch on a good point with your concern of things not being described in enough detail. You could get just a bunch of nonsense that the author throws out there that the community has to decipher. The subject of that first link (Tracz) seems to believe that any amount of prepublication review would delay publicatoin unneccessarily and thus is a crminally bad thing. I dont think such a vision will be successful. Without any type of prepublication review, publishing would, indeed, just become a mess. How would you differentiate quality from one journal to the next. This may be a shrewd business plan for a new publisher in entering the market, hahaa, but this would never happen as long as institutions put so much emphasis on publishing in high quality journals and high quality journals desire to maintain their prestige via high quality papers.
EDIT:(aside: Without prepublication safeguards the literature landscape may look a little like the Anne Beate Reinertsen offerings:
http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/is-this-the-most-bizarre-paper-ever-published-in-a-peer-reviewed-journal
http://www.amazon.co.uk/SPUNK-community--authorized-perspective-research/dp/3639192699/ref=sr_1_1/279-8575429-3987233?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381079039&sr=1-1
âŚor maybe Im not giving her enough credit and she is on a crusade against preditory publishing houses. Either way it is awesome)
Another thing that struck me about that first link was the sugesstion of a journals specializing in negative results. This type of publishing model in the print-only world would be a joke. It may still be a joke (certainly cheap upkeep), but still kind of mindblowing that someone could suggest it now (because of the capabilites of the internet) in all seriousness .
The best suggestions imo:
-open access publishing model (sole funding coming from authors)
-the peer review system should continue indefinitely (via realtime feed of comments from the community)
-the reviewers should be non-anonymous
-availability raw data should be increased
After spending some time, the only place I found that may have open access peer review in my field âair trafficâ related research was Elsevier.
Maybe you know some links so I can look at. I have an idea for a paper, based on a report to NASA and the FAA we completed about 1.5 years ago.
AFAIK, essentially no one has access to the report because youâre only going to get it if:
- Our NASA âbossâ tells them about it and gives it to them.
- Itâs not available online.
A subset of our work was peer reviewed and published in a private journal run by AIAA. You have to pay to read.
Bugs me to no end how the publishing system still exists like that.
I didnât know anything about how photos are taken until just now:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/
Now I know a bit about the physics of capturing photons on a sensor.
yeah. Open source is definitely the exception. But, I def wouldnt know better than you about open source in your field. Typically open source is more expensive to publish in, since the $$$ doesnt come from subscription fees. That is likely the major activation barrier to this shift in publishing model.
Also:
How could I forget about this gem of an example:
This author squeezed her paper through the current peer review system. The scientific community offered uncharacteristically harsh criticisms of her work (this was high profile stuff and they knew the stakes). She *deferred * to the currrent peer review system as a way of refusing to respond to the critisisms. Meanwhile she takes her spiel to TED talks (basically sales pitches to rich audiences with no questioning) hahaa. It then drew out into a duel of publications as some of the bloggers who responded in real time eventually published papers simply stating that OG authorâs mehthods were flawed and they were unable to reproduce OG authors results in any meaningful way, etc.
If I remember correctly this research had breaking redbarr status on CNN.com and even had a dedicated thread in SRK GD. Im sure people remeber the hype and the letdown but not how the scientific community actually corrected the record. This sounds like one of the best ways to extinguish faith of common citizens (the source of the funding) in science. The current publishing model is counterproductive?
http://news.yahoo.com/gravity-inaccuracies-161723027.html
Neil is not impressed with your puny space movie, Earthling.
Sound in space was my first gripe. I get itâs supposed to be a movie for general audiences but come on.
Neil is my favorite science person of all time, keep it real man :tup:
The future of tooth brushes is here
lol top comment on youtube
Did the science Nobels even register in the news this year?
dont see it anywhere on the typical news websites
Better/more science outreachers needed?
Yea man I heard it all over NPR.
They even did a segment on how they contact the winners if they were in America,e.g. call them at 1am local time lol.
What legendâ˝
The ancient Norse were pretty boss, but I donât think they knew what a neutron star is.
Yeah I havenât seen any mention of the Nobels on news sites / channels either. I ended up hearing about it on Dawkinsâ twitter. That is not kidding.
But some big science news. I think itâs big. About nuclear fusion energy stuff.
Holy Shit! One step closerâŚ
here is a good one:
I thought it handled sound in space well. The sound effects, such as they were, were edited in a way that they all seemed conducted through the fabric of the tethers and space suits. There are no instances I noticed of sounds that plainly werenât being perceived by the astronauts in this way.
In fact, some of the movieâs most effective moments are the scenes of incredible destruction with not a sound to be heard, or of when a compartment is losing air and the sound dies away with it.
Interesting⌠I never got that percussive sensation of sound watching the trailer but Iâll take your word for it. Akira and Firefly are the only 2 media that Iâve seen that had full acknowledgment of the lack of sound in space.