Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's the role of an academic journal in 2020? For me, trustworthiness. Not all journals are equal but some are held in such high esteem that I would grant a lot more credence to the findings of an article published in a journal than one self-published. I have neither the time or will to assess the merits of each individual who might publish something. If a name is sufficiently big within a field, it's usually in…
If a self-published article included full equipment and software to replicate their results in a multimedia fashion (basically included engineering), would that alter your snob-ness?
New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
91–100 of 207 posts
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#92Why 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…
This. Writing up work is a LOT of work. Doing that for something that's negative, often for unknown reasons is just opportunity cost most of the time.
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#93Huh, this is my university
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
While we're at it, why not make public whoever audited or referred the paper? Why does that need to be secret?
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…
Double blind reviews are the standard in at least some corners of CS. Not only conferences, also for some journals.
Though you will also encounter single blind reviewing. I haven't encountered a truly open review process yet.
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#95Half 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…
IMO, nowadays top-tier conference paper tends to focus too much on telling an interesting story. This makes researchers only show the surprising result in the paper. The unsurprising one is hardly mentioned. 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?
Yeah, that's the TED Talk effect, as some people put it
You cannot make a TED Talk about something that people already know
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#96Earlier 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).
Never encountered paying for non-open access publication.
I have only encountered "article processing fees" in relation to open access publishing.
If you're okay with having your paper paywalled, you do not need to pay for journal publication.
So I'm curious in which domain/subdomain you have encountered this.
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#97Half 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…
1. Other than your time, why not preprint it? 2. As an aside, I can't tell you how many times I've tried to work on stuff, it ends up working, and then I find papers and people saying what we did would never work. Sometimes the ignorance is good.
> then I find papers and people saying what we did would never work.
Seriously? What kind of scientific paper makes such claims?
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#98Half 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…
My experience: I proposed a thesis to an advisor who deemed it unlikely to work. He ran it by a colleague who came to the same conclusion. I went to a different major and pursued the same thesis and invited the previous faculty who initially turned it down to the defense because it was relevant to their field. It was frustrating to hear them voice their opinions in the defense that they felt, “of course it world work…
Didn't you ask them "But didn't you say this was uspublishable?" and what was their response?
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are some good reads, and have absolutely been my experience. It's depressing how many publications that I've come across don't provide the whole story, and are probably false. I've found that looking at what a paper doesn't report can be far more important that what they claim.
I wonder how many novel techniques could come out of these types of reports if they were actually analyzed by ML or NLP.
I definitely think there's more room for this sort of guided / ML analysis, but I'm not quite sure to make traction on extracting the structure of scientific papers...hopefully someone with more experience can chime in.
I think paper discovery has recently suffered a huge boon thanks to ConnectedPapers, though. [https://www.connectedpapers.com/]
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#100Why 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.
Peer-reviewing.
A research that haven't been peer-reviewed is worth nothing in my opinion and it can't be achieved with open archives.