Nobel laureate announces boycott of glamour mags...
This is excellent. I'm sorry it took a scandal about free content creation, sexism and racism to bring DNLee to my attention:
For some reason this Opinionator piece about turtle blood for the common cold got me riled up enough to come out of hibernation:
Nagel (the philosopher, not the graphic artist from 80's hair salons),
decontextualized speech sounds, ...
and taking long lunches to read novels because your data don't make any sense. Yet.
Stumbled upon this piece from a couple of years ago. How poignant to read about Mendeley before they were owned by Elsevier...
Lots of good stuff here, notably:
"Many in the publishing industry dismiss the idea that the public even wants to read scientific papers, pointing to their often highly technical language. But a major reason these papers are so inscrutable is that their authors conceive of their audience very narrowly – basically scholars in their field. And if you have no expectation that the public will read your work, you do not write it to be accessible to the public."
This paper took five years to publish after our initial presentation at Cognitive Science in 2008. It is really solid work. There's no reason getting it into the literature should have been like passing a stone.
I am seriously considering just sending everything I do to PLOS ONE from now on. The review process at most journals has become a parody of itself, and then your work ends up behind a paywall. Why?
I know my tendency is to send things to PLOS ONE only when they have b...een so battered and bruised at other journals that I just want to get the publication process over with and move on. This colors my perception of other work that is published there. And that's a shame.
But if I knew that people were sending their work there on principle, and that people were willing to send their best work there, along with the stuff that they feel isn't conclusive or "splashy" enough to appear elsewhere, that would change.
So far I have been afraid to put my money where my mouth is, because it feels like unilateral disarmament, and competition in the field being what it is, I didn't think I could afford to put myself (and more importantly the people who've worked with me) at a disadvantage. But I am growing tired of complaining about this, and listening to everybody else complain about it, and not doing anything.
What if I just announced that I was going to send everything from my lab to PLOS ONE from now on? What bad would happen?
Taken out of context this sounds like a terrible thing to say, so you just have to read the article to see why I'm with Tal Yarkoni on this:
"Unlike the other considerations listed above, I think the concern that being honest carries a price when it comes to doing research has a good deal of merit to it. "
"Anyone who wants to argue that the behavior they observe in anybody has no historical origin or political context, but is a dislocated manifestation of an uncultural human nature, will not be taken seriously by a community of scholars of human behavior, unless they can really unambiguously prove their point."
...unless those scholars are psychologists?
Has everyone else seen this already? I found it in the comments of this interesting discussion of crowdfunding for science on Drugmonkey: http://scientopia.org/…/hurdles-for-the-crowdfunding-scien…/
"Because of these problems with measuring perception, the “seductive allure of brain imaging” for me was not so much that it would explain the “neural correlates” of anything. Rather, the idea was that the brain activity elicited under passive conditions was a better measure of the limits of perception than behavioral tasks because the tasks themselves were interfering unacceptably with what we wanted to observe...
"It seemed like a good idea at the time..."
"The mind is only one of the operations of the brain, just as entertainment is only one of the operations of a circus."