Skip

Keep it short and descriptive
January 29, 2014 7:36 PM   Subscribe


 
 
posted by Rock Steady at 7:39 PM on January 29 [7 favorites]



posted by laconic skeuomorph at 7:55 PM on January 29







posted by Krazor at 7:56 PM on January 29



     
   
     
     
     
posted by grouse at 8:01 PM on January 29


E = mc2
posted by islander at 8:05 PM on January 29


Enough already.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 8:09 PM on January 29 [22 favorites]


1. This link may have been appreciated by BlackLeotardFront.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 8:13 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]


You have no idea how much I'm repressing the urge to post this ...
posted by maudlin at 8:13 PM on January 29 [4 favorites]






posted by lollusc at 8:16 PM on January 29


Damn, while I was figuring out how to post a blank comment, you guys came in and spoiled all the fun.
posted by lollusc at 8:17 PM on January 29


No
posted by BozoBurgerBonanza at 8:28 PM on January 29


On the Validity of Extraordinary Scientific Journal Techniques: A response to BozoBurgerBonanza

Yes.
posted by Apropos of Something at 8:36 PM on January 29 [5 favorites]


I always liked Leonard Maltin's review of "Isn't It Romantic".

"no."
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me at 8:40 PM on January 29 [2 favorites]


As seen in Physics World Feb. '93 (the Institute of Physics monthly mag.)

"Last month saw the issue of a preprint from CERN's theory division by
D Hajdukovic and H Satz:- 'Does the one-dimensional Ising model show
intermittency?' asks the title. For those who understand the question
but are uninterested in the details, the abstract is commendably and
may be unprecendently succint... 'NO.'
(from here)
posted by eruonna at 8:44 PM on January 29


...the review you had on "Shark Sandwich," which was merely a two word review — just said "shit sandwich"...
posted by blue t-shirt at 8:51 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]


The above think it's short, but Blazecock Pileon knows short idea.
Word, understood.
posted by Mblue at 8:53 PM on January 29


Metafilter: Probably Not
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:06 PM on January 29




Shortest mystery story. (I was unsuccessful in selling it to Ellery Queen's).

.
Mr. . ?

(Translated as Dot missed her period. Question Mark.)
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:16 PM on January 29 [6 favorites]


Annika Cicada

Obviously.
posted by Mblue at 9:21 PM on January 29


They missed the silent disproof of one of Mersenne's conjectures about prime numbers.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:31 PM on January 29 [7 favorites]







posted by chance at 10:10 PM on January 29


Does legalization of LGBT marriage across-the-board lead to popular support for marriage between man and beast?

Abstract:

what
posted by lordaych at 11:03 PM on January 29 [2 favorites]


Is marijuana a harmful gateway drug with potential long-term societal impacts that eclipse those of alcohol or other recreational substances?

Abstract:

lolwut
posted by lordaych at 11:04 PM on January 29


Wait ... there are scientific disciplines that don't have double blind peer review? Why on Earth would anybody agree to that?
posted by Apropos of Something at 11:04 PM on January 29


Maybe you could argue that double-blind potentially skews the process more because of what Walkowicz says about recognizing style and em-dashes, etc. So it's possible in certain scenarios with smaller groups of easily recognizable people working on similar research, double-blind might give an advantage to those who are more familiar with their peers' work (not necessarily a bad thing) but also encourage biases and clique dynamics if people deliberately game the system and gain an overwhelming advantage or friendships between academics create Balkanization and conflict between peer groups, or time wasted trying to "standardize" all literature so that it's as sterile of style and personality as possible.

And in a smaller more insular focus of research these advantages and dynamics are easier to attain and exploit unless everyone simply has the same advantage vs. "double-blindedness for most."

Totally talking out of my ass, I need to read more.
posted by lordaych at 11:13 PM on January 29


Also, whilst I'm not sure about entire disciplines, there are certain trials that can't be conducted in a double blind manner. For example, if I want to test the effects of surgery compared to a drug, it will be pretty obvious to everyone involved which is which (and it would be impossible to get ethical approval for a 'placebo' surgical procedure).
posted by Ned G at 1:46 AM on January 30


Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
 
posted by Herodios at 4:07 AM on January 30


Ned G, I think they mean double-blind peer reviews. In which the author is not told who's reviewing his paper and the reviewers aren't told who authored it.
posted by ardgedee at 4:38 AM on January 30


"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"

Hey! That's my line!
posted by wittgenstein at 5:00 AM on January 30 [4 favorites]


Probably not

Good to see that Betteridge's law of headlines also apples to scientific papers.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 5:07 AM on January 30


Imagine first that having multiple reviewers was a standard practice for all journals (in astronomy, most journals have only a single referee)

Wot
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:18 AM on January 30


As soon as I saw the title I knew the article it was going to discuss. There is also a follow-up to Upper 1974, same journal, a multi-site study that verified the original results. We have both articles tacked to a bulletin board in my office; they've been there for some time now yet never fail to inspire.
posted by caution live frogs at 5:33 AM on January 30 [1 favorite]


"Hey! That's my line!"

"Good artists copy; great artists steal."
        — cyberscythe, copyright 2014, all rights reserved in perpetuity throughout the universe
posted by cyberscythe at 6:28 AM on January 30 [2 favorites]


I read the paper in precisely four minutes and thirty-three seconds.
posted by ogooglebar at 8:24 AM on January 30 [3 favorites]


Correspondence: "On cyberscythe, Shia LeBoeuf, Kenneth Goldsmith and the creative practice of plagiarism"

[monkey-peeing-into-mouth.mp4]
posted by en forme de poire at 8:26 AM on January 30 [1 favorite]


shit sandwich.
posted by jenkinsEar at 8:27 AM on January 30


For some fields, if you know it well enough then you can absolutely identify at least the group that did the work - if only like 3 people are known to do mass spec with a certain type of instrument, for example, and only one of them works in $model_organism_x, there you go. (And even if you're wrong, if you're confident enough that you're right, that could also really suck for authors who keep getting confused with another group.)
posted by en forme de poire at 8:33 AM on January 30 [1 favorite]


>>Imagine first that having multiple reviewers was a standard practice for all journals (in astronomy, most journals have only a single referee)

>Wot


Too many papers, not enough astronomers with the specialty expertise to review them?

(Nature and Science manage to rustle up a couple for each astronomy paper - usually. But the rest of them typically just use one review plus a knowledgeable editor.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:43 AM on January 30


Maybe you could argue that double-blind potentially skews the process more because of what Walkowicz says about recognizing style and em-dashes, etc.

In astronomy, if it is a paper about object class X with instrument Y, I usually don't need to think very hard to guess who (which group) wrote it. There really aren't that many telescopes doing cutting edge stuff.
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:46 AM on January 30 [1 favorite]


"Hey! That's my line!"

  "Good artists copy; great artists steal."        
— cyberscythe, copyright 2014, all rights reserved in perpetuity throughout the universe"

    -- Wayne Gretzky

        -- Michael Scott
posted by Chrysostom at 10:35 AM on January 30


I'd like to see the TED version.
'Ladies and gentleman, I have absolutely nothing to say. And that's what I'm here to talk to you about this evening............."
*stares attentively back at crowd for 15:19*
posted by Smedleyman at 11:59 AM on January 30 [1 favorite]


I think this is a good trend: science papers on Twitter. #democraticscience.

"What does the Twittersphere think about our research into neutrino eschatology?"

"LOL FUCKIN LAME, GET A REAL JOB PINHEADS"
posted by turbid dahlia at 2:32 PM on January 30


*turns page over*





*turns page over again*
posted by BlueHorse at 6:33 PM on January 30 [1 favorite]


« Older We employ the ultrasonic speakers and you hear...   |   Attention Artists: Don't Throw... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post