tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post1929359766878224249..comments2024-03-28T06:43:02.954+00:00Comments on Variable Variability: No, blog posts cannot replace scientific articlesVictor Venemahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-11650408435912837862015-06-01T23:35:19.608+01:002015-06-01T23:35:19.608+01:00Virtual Reality. Yes!! And you can immediately wal...Virtual Reality. Yes!! And you can immediately walk through your 3-dimensional dataset.<br /><br />Also without paper journals, the limitation is how much information the reader can process. A good filter is important. If we do not know in advance which texts are of WUWT & Co. quality, that would severely hinder science. Maybe filtering is even more important than ever given the increase in number of publication due to the micro-management of science on the number of publications. Designing good filter, at least theoretically, should be easier on the internet.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-50845547483528142562015-06-01T23:29:35.181+01:002015-06-01T23:29:35.181+01:00Interesting topic. As for a group of experts meeti...Interesting topic. As for a group of experts meeting -- you might get that sooner or later via <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/i-held-a-meeting-in-virtual-reality" rel="nofollow">VR</a>. I think no written social media thingy can replace this.<br /><br />The publication model stems from a time when publications had to be limited because they were printed. Today publication is free - now it is about efficient and fine-grained filtering, which can be guided by post-publication review. Simple as that. Putting it to work in the real world is the hard part ...hvwaldownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-40906877007489328942015-06-01T23:14:50.581+01:002015-06-01T23:14:50.581+01:00Whether a publication is a tombstone may also depe...Whether a publication is a tombstone may also depend on the field. In the atmospheric sciences details are often important. The atmosphere being a complex and complicated system. Conference presentation can only provide an abstract and you really need to read the article.<br /><br />I used to use arxiv until they made it harder to get rid of the pseudo-science manuscripts and you had to get recommendations. Now I just put my manuscripts on my homepage. Because arxiv is not used that much in the atmospheric sciences that is likely almost as good.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-35200468600333432902015-06-01T23:06:06.177+01:002015-06-01T23:06:06.177+01:00Well, there is an intermediate ground, whether or ...Well, there is an intermediate ground, whether or not it's where permanent results should live: arXiv.org. <a href="http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~larry/Peer-Review.pdf" rel="nofollow">Larry Wasserman has suggested</a> that arXiv.org could serve as a preliminary step to publication (as it actually does), because articles which are interesting in a field are accessed, and duds are not. In contrast <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.4304.pdf" rel="nofollow">Chopin, Gelman, Mengersen, and Robert feel</a> refereeing is essential. <br /><br />My view is that refereeing <i>is</i> essential, but publications are like the "tombstone announcements" of stock offerings which often appear in the financial press: By the time they appear, they are formal notices and don't announce anything. The people in the know not only have received word of the development, they have moved past it. <br /><br />And some fields have, to me, odd notions of what matters. Apparently, in Computer Science, and especially in Internet measurement work, appearance in conferences is the standard of scholarly achievement. I'm not sure of the role of papers there, but that sure contrasts with achievement in physical and observational sciences, statistics, and engineering, where the steps are typically poster, conference, and then publication.Jan Galkowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07636706072515906253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-9167512797912887432015-06-01T15:56:18.910+01:002015-06-01T15:56:18.910+01:00That was exactly what I was talking about with the...That was exactly what I was talking about with the difference between written and oral discussions. If you hold the same debate orally at a conference you would not have to pay for it. When you do it on the internet and you fix every written contribution for eternity it becomes work. Then you have to make sure that every statement is clear and makes sense, while in a normal conversation it is no big deal if someone has to ask for a clarification or makes a small correction.<br /><br />You also notice how little scientists write comments here, while I know from conferences that they do read my blog occasionally.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-40601889868621770732015-06-01T15:28:50.662+01:002015-06-01T15:28:50.662+01:00[This comment by Jos was erroneously published bel...[This comment by Jos was erroneously published below the wrong post. Now copied here.]<br /><br />Hi Victor,<br /><br />That last notion - a group of experts present at the same time and location with a quick bouncing of ideas that is missing in the virtual world where discussions go much slower and many are not present - is an interesting one.<br /><br />The peer review process also does not really fit this description. Yet personal experience is that exactly that - having a group of experts together discussing ideas - can be extremely valuable, stimulating and provide a fast track for sharpening ideas.<br /><br />In the past that would happen on conferences and workshops, but with an ever expanding research community and conferences such possibilities, combined with more pressure to (quickly) publish the possibility of letting your ideas gradually mature, are becoming more and more rare.<br /><br />I could imagine that some form of pre-publication online discussion platform for experts and for example moderated by journal editors or journal staff might be something worth thinking about. Maybe also for continued post-publication discussion of papers. There would also have to be some reward for participatation of these experts, as they put in time/resources.<br /><br />As an example, I've played around with the idea of journals inviting experts on 'hot' topics to discuss this hot topic at an online platform - like with Climate Dialogue - where the discussion would count as peer-reviewed , i.e. get the same status as a research paper. The latter would provide incentives for experts to participate, which was an issue when running Climate Dialogue.<br /><br />Thoughts?<br /><br />Cheers, Jos. Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.com