71–80 of 207 posts
[1] https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD09xx/E...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it normal for journals to charge a fee for publishing?
This is normal practice. To publish in a respectable journal you are charged £1000+. To publish your paper as open access, you can be charged another ~£1000 for the privledge (IEEE).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should have less transparency, not more. Right now the peer review process is single-blind, but it really should be double-blind. Even if someone doesn't have a PhD or work at a research institution, they should be able to publish good science. Right now, that just isn't possible. And the opposite problem is also true: if you're a big shot in your field, you'll be able to find at least one journal that will publis…
Getting that benefit only requires double-blinding during the review process. There’s no reason that both sides of the blinding cannot be removed (and also revealed to third parties) after the review process is complete.
Half of my PhD thesis is considered "unpublishable" because, after doing the work, my supervisors felt it's actually "unsurprising" that it didn't work out. We took methods that had been exploited to improve on previous results for over a decade to their logical extreme, and found that this method no longer leads to improvements. After doing the work it seems obvious. A paper on the subject would almost be considered…
However, the uninteresting part would definitely help others to not make the same mistake. The uninteresting result is still result (and contribution), isn't it?
Why don’t research groups just publish to their own websites or directories like arxiv? What’s the role of an academic journal in 2020? Honest question, I’d love to see more blogging from hard science academics but I’m wondering if there’s a reason why that’s challenging or if it’s just academic culture. We should have a Substack/OnlyFans for scientists.
Speaking from my own experience in the physical sciences, labs don't self publish unsurprising results because there are only so many hours in the day and it's not worth the effort. Even just putting the results on your own website is a lot of work. Pulling all of the data together, analyzing it, putting it in visuals, writing up the results. It can be hard to justify committing that much time to something where the…
Why don’t research groups just publish to their own websites or directories like arxiv? What’s the role of an academic journal in 2020? Honest question, I’d love to see more blogging from hard science academics but I’m wondering if there’s a reason why that’s challenging or if it’s just academic culture. We should have a Substack/OnlyFans for scientists.
There are sociology studies, published in closed journals, that detail the positive impacts that public libraries have on communities. The PhDs of that field must either be (1) blind to the irony, (2) totally resigned to this state of affairs, or (3) themselves complicit as managers of closed journals. One more indictment: I'll bet they're all extremely depressed about how scientifically illiterate the general popula…
I take actual pleasure in pirating research papers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm... it seems like this would be a good thing for undergrads to do in a class setting or an internship. It would give them experience writing an actual paper, albeit with null results.
It would require a lot of babysitting. Some objects have a few slightly different definitions (for example,one book has a definition, and the other book the definition is 1/2 of that). Sometimes the programs to run the calculations don't use the same variables than the paper (perhaps the team changed the opinion, or the main reference, and the graph must show x+y vs y). Sometimes the work that should be included in t…
The hard part here is that communicating any idea clearly to an audience takes massive effort, and usually null results, unless quite interesting in a specific context, are naturally a lower priority.
I’m currently working on a paper built around what I believe to be a fascinating null result though...
Half of my PhD thesis is considered "unpublishable" because, after doing the work, my supervisors felt it's actually "unsurprising" that it didn't work out. We took methods that had been exploited to improve on previous results for over a decade to their logical extreme, and found that this method no longer leads to improvements. After doing the work it seems obvious. A paper on the subject would almost be considered…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is normal practice. To publish in a respectable journal you are charged £1000+. To publish your paper as open access, you can be charged another ~£1000 for the privledge (IEEE).
I think it's laughable they still charge extra for color pictures.