Supporting The IWMW 2008 Event

Cameron Neylon Male Bath United Kingdom: Share; Share on Twitter; Share on Facebook

Blog Posts
Discussions
Groups (1)

Cameron Neylon's Apps

Cameron Neylon's Friends

View All

Cameron Neylon's Groups

B3: The Real Information…

4 members

View All

Aggregated content from elsewhere

BBC - Richard Black's Earth Watch: Mea culpa and au revoir

Cameron Neylon

BBC - Richard Black's Earth Watch: Mea culpa and au revoir - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs...

yesterday from Bookmarklet - Comment - Like

Daniel Mietchen, Björn Brembs and Neil Saunders liked this

Interesting comment in the centre of of this - "If any positives can come out of a piece of poor reporting, here's one I would highlight. A number of readers went beyond the news report into the press release - and presumably if Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) were an open-access journal, a number of you would have gone into the scientific paper as well. Press releases sometimes don't give an entirely accurate account of a piece or work, so going into the paper itself has to be desirable, and that's as much a challenge for PNAS and other subscription journals as it was when the issue of open-access publishing first arose." - Cameron Neylon

heh heh heh. slooooooowly, the discourse changes. - D0r0th34

… Continue

Re: P ≠ NP and the future of peer review

Cameron Neylon

Re: P ≠ NP and the future of peer review - http://scienceintheopen.disqus.com/p_np_an...

Saturday from Disqus - Comment - Like

"Absolutely agree with the need for credit. This is a fundamental of getting anyone to do anything, and is at the root of the many cultural problems in modern research. What I find interesting is that credit can seem trivial, people work hard to get high kudos on Stack Overflow or to get Facebook/Friendfeed "likes" or retweets. As these become important to people they can start to become "real" (Stack Overflow scores have appeared on some CVs for instance). To some extent I see these high profile examples of community review as starting to provide some legitimacy for those kind of contributions precisely because they have a high profile. In terms of the "technical quality of review" question. I've certainly heard (but can't lay my hands on any examples at the moment) CNS staff and editors say things like "the most rigorous peer review", "always send to reviewers at least twice for detailed comments", "often request extra experiments". Again this is partly confusion over what peer..." - Cameron Neylon

… Continue

Rethinking Peer Review As The World Peer Reviews Claimed Proof ...

Cameron Neylon

Rethinking Peer Review As The World Peer Reviews Claimed Proof ... - http://techdirt.com/article...

Saturday from Google Reader - Comment - Like

Dan Hagon and Daniel Mietchen liked this

A post on my post ( http://cameronneylon.net/blog...) from last week, with some additional commentary - Cameron Neylon

The comments on this post (not Cameron's) show how messy the discussion of peer review is. It will take time to consider all sides. - Bill Anderson

… Continue

Supplementary materials is a stopgap for data archiving

Cameron Neylon

Supplementary materials is a stopgap for data archiving - http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2010...

Saturday from Google Reader - Comment - Like

Bill Anderson and Christina Pikas liked this

Mmm. I read this when I am for the first time writing supplementary material for 2 papers I am writng. In one, the supplementary includes a full description of the algorithms used for analysis (that cannot fit in the paper because of word limits). On the other, we are adding in the supplementary some preliminary data to avoid using the standard 'data not shown' or the alternative 'personal observation'. So, if supplementary is not an option, what would the more reasonable option be in such a situation? - Kubke

Post it on OpenWetWare, I'd say, and include the permalink in the paper. - Daniel Mietchen

That is an interesting suggestion, Daniel. Hadn't thought of that. Will suggest to my co-authors. - Kubke

A webcitation.org copy of the permalink may be helpful too. - Daniel Mietchen

… Continue

Refs on supplementary material

Cameron Neylon

Refs on supplementary material - http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2010...

Saturday from Google Reader - Comment - Like

Daniel Mietchen liked this

… Continue

Re: P ≠ NP and the future of peer review

Cameron Neylon

Re: P ≠ NP and the future of peer review - http://scienceintheopen.disqus.com/p_np_an...

Saturday from Disqus - Comment - Like

"I guess the point for me about the GWAS paper is that the criticisms in the 23andMe post as well as comments by dgmacarthur (I think it was) and others revealed fundamental technical issues that should have been exposed by technical review at any reputable journal, let alone Science where one presumes the standard is somehow higher than average (I can't speak to this myself as I've never reviewed for them nor had a paper get to review). It my be my reading of the post but it sounded as though there were fundamental technical checks that should be done for any GWAS paper that simply weren't. In terms of the editor's problem, and I am an editor at PLoS ONE and for a new BMC journal soon to be launched, I couldn't agree more. The question is whether its worth the bother, is it more effective to simply put it out for anyone interested to review, and then allow the paper to be iteratively improved in response to those comments until it reaches some sort of level of agreement that it gets..." - Cameron Neylon

… Continue

Data flow from Source to Destination

Cameron Neylon

Data flow from Source to Destination - http://clarionproject.wordpress.com/2010...

Friday from Google Reader - Comment - Like

Dan Hagon, Deepak Singh, Egon Willighagen and Claudia Koltzenburg liked this

Clarion project has lots of interesting aspects in terms of data flow and records management... - Cameron Neylon

… Continue

Re: P ≠ NP and the future of peer review

Cameron Neylon

Re: P ≠ NP and the future of peer review - http://scienceintheopen.disqus.com/p_np_an...

Friday from Disqus - Comment - Like

"Absolutely! That's partly what I was trying to argue here tho I'm not sure I made myself terribly clear. But I think as a community we need to take some responsibility for not demanding more as well. It's part of the avoidance of responsibility that I feel derives from the fact that as researchers we make the decision about where to (try to) send our papers but we don't have to deal with the cost, so we don't squeal and demand good value for money." - Cameron Neylon

… Continue

Re: P ≠ NP and the future of peer review

Cameron Neylon

Re: P ≠ NP and the future of peer review - http://scienceintheopen.disqus.com/p_np_an...

Friday from Disqus - Comment - Like

"Becky, you won't get any argument from me on that. We know that this is hard and we certainly know that making a step change from one system to another won't happen. Equally tho, some of these pressures are going to shift pretty quickly. The patenting thing is certainly shifting in some quarters as people realise just how few of those patents are making any money at all, and how many of them are just blocks to innovation and opportunities for patent trolls. Even on the issue of grant review I think things are shifting. Bottom line, organisations that judges individual people on the basis of the journal's they publish in (as opposed to the performance of their actual papers) need to take a long hard look at themselves because doing so is counterproductive and indeed highly non-scientific. You can't actually predict anything about the quality of a paper (within reasonable error bounds) from the journal it appears in. The broader question, could this work in biomedical sciences? Well I..." - Cameron Neylon

… Continue