Take the time to read it. It useful also to understand what a scientific paper is (and so to write one scientific paper). Not to forget what I already collected in this blog.
Showing posts with label Reviewing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reviewing. Show all posts
Monday, August 17, 2015
How to read a scientific paper
The American Society of Plant Biologists took sometimes to put together this little amusing booklet about what is a scientific paper.
Take the time to read it. It useful also to understand what a scientific paper is (and so to write one scientific paper). Not to forget what I already collected in this blog.
Take the time to read it. It useful also to understand what a scientific paper is (and so to write one scientific paper). Not to forget what I already collected in this blog.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Notes from a panel on reviewing
I take from one of the blog I follow Living on an Ivory basement, a post on reviewing papers:
My notes for a panel presentation on reviewing papers and grants. Talking on reviewing is always an excuse to talk about science, and the way scientists think to it. Jump to the blog for reading it.
Directly from the post above: Env. Micro. referee comments:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02660.x/full
Some examples:
My notes for a panel presentation on reviewing papers and grants. Talking on reviewing is always an excuse to talk about science, and the way scientists think to it. Jump to the blog for reading it.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02660.x/full
Some examples:
- "It is sad to see so much enthusiasm and effort go into analyzing a dataset that is just not big enough."
- "You call the sample fresh water, this is confusing as it is saline water."
- "The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style."
These is absolutely not how you should write reviews. But they are funny.
- "You call the sample fresh water, this is confusing as it is saline water."
- "The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style."
These is absolutely not how you should write reviews. But they are funny.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Why to write and publish scientific papers in hydrology
Luca Brocca (also here) brought to my attention a series of slides from Demetris Koutsoyiannis (see also here) about the challenges faced in publishing a paper. I dedicated one of my first, and others posts, to this, but a further lecture can be interesting and this is even enjoyable.
From Demetris slides (here) I cite some from Schulman E.R.'s humorous paper:
"Scientific papers … are an important—though poorly understood—method of publication. They are important because without them scientists cannot get money from the government or from universities. They are poorly understood because they are not written very well.
… "
and three statements which could be interpreted as truisms, but they are not (with my comments):
Looking at publishing from another side, papers are not all the outcomes of a research, but one among others, as are models, patents, books, data, and other stuff, especially if one considers that not everybody is a professor in real life (is here is sort of an equation ? - academy=publishing / not academy .. : do not care ?). Certainly writing a paper and going trough a review process can challenge your certainties, and refine your knowledge. IMHO doing research and writing are two different jobs, that meet only in good papers (and with the further note that unpublished research does not produced shared knowledge, and therefore science^2^2b).
Finishing with who started the thread, Luca B. also tries to point out (the papers in figure are from his own CV^1) that publications history, and peer review process can be weird and, at the light of history, even wrong (as a brief report of Keith Beven^3 included in D.K presentation also tells). However, being consistent, he could publish. Being consistent about consistency, besides being smart, is certainly a key of success.
Notes
^1 - I could also put the same comment on some of my papers,and, I could further include a paper that was never published after good reviews, just for the decision of the AE. Never mind: peer review is the worst form of selecting papers, except all the others form that have been tried from time to time (paraphrasing W. Churchill).
^2 - Something is still transmitted through oral communication though.
^2b - Science, however, is not just shared knowledge. For instance, it is substantiated by the possibility of checking (well, falsifying) assertions with experiments, yes, at the uncertain light of probability.
^3 - I admire K. Beven work, and I almost completely agree on what Jeff McDonnell (Google scholar here) says on him (reported in D.K slides). However, I am urged to remind, without offending anyone, that there is a certain difference between Saul Bellow and Stephen King. The first has certainly less readers than the first, but ...
From Demetris slides (here) I cite some from Schulman E.R.'s humorous paper:
"Scientific papers … are an important—though poorly understood—method of publication. They are important because without them scientists cannot get money from the government or from universities. They are poorly understood because they are not written very well.
… "
and three statements which could be interpreted as truisms, but they are not (with my comments):
- Reading other good papers is much more useful than reading guidelines about how to write and publish papers (but you have to know the basics of writing a scientific paper, and someone that dissects it for you would help)
- Writing a good paper presupposes good understanding of the subject studied (In my view not entirely true ... you just need to have an intuition and pursue it. Having it all clear can take decades, and in the long range we are all dead. As D.K. says too, a good scientific paper is something in the flow of knowledge. Do not wait too much to write it)
- Publishing the paper presupposes good understanding of how the peer review process works (definitely true. Some opportunistic behaviour is necessary to survive).
To sum up, D.K. presentation is a "must read".
Looking at publishing from another side, papers are not all the outcomes of a research, but one among others, as are models, patents, books, data, and other stuff, especially if one considers that not everybody is a professor in real life (is here is sort of an equation ? - academy=publishing / not academy .. : do not care ?). Certainly writing a paper and going trough a review process can challenge your certainties, and refine your knowledge. IMHO doing research and writing are two different jobs, that meet only in good papers (and with the further note that unpublished research does not produced shared knowledge, and therefore science^2^2b).
Finishing with who started the thread, Luca B. also tries to point out (the papers in figure are from his own CV^1) that publications history, and peer review process can be weird and, at the light of history, even wrong (as a brief report of Keith Beven^3 included in D.K presentation also tells). However, being consistent, he could publish. Being consistent about consistency, besides being smart, is certainly a key of success.
Notes
^1 - I could also put the same comment on some of my papers,and, I could further include a paper that was never published after good reviews, just for the decision of the AE. Never mind: peer review is the worst form of selecting papers, except all the others form that have been tried from time to time (paraphrasing W. Churchill).
^2 - Something is still transmitted through oral communication though.
^2b - Science, however, is not just shared knowledge. For instance, it is substantiated by the possibility of checking (well, falsifying) assertions with experiments, yes, at the uncertain light of probability.
^3 - I admire K. Beven work, and I almost completely agree on what Jeff McDonnell (Google scholar here) says on him (reported in D.K slides). However, I am urged to remind, without offending anyone, that there is a certain difference between Saul Bellow and Stephen King. The first has certainly less readers than the first, but ...
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Embargoes on the web
Paolo Tarolli sent to me the following link where the Nature Geosciences (and Nature indeed) ask for an embargo on information about unpublished papers. They argue among other things:
Frankly, I disagree on the statement (Well they can require what they want for their journal).
On the contrary I appreciate the EGU open access journals where the policy to show discussion papers, both improve the "preprints", and make more careful most of the peer reviews.
Wittgenstein teaches: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.
" it may well be in our authors' interest to limit pre-publicity of their results "
Frankly, I disagree on the statement (Well they can require what they want for their journal).
I am contrary to any embargo. I noticed that in Physics the free distribution of Preprints was massive even before the present era of web 2.0 with no problems whatsoever. At the same time, I believe (actually Nature would probably agree with me on this point) that I am able to judge my Science's topics with the same deepness of any other of my peers, and that getting any scientific information early is very useful and propel the advancement of science.
Granted this, it would be very difficult in the present times, to filter out any written information, from the public.
Moreover, if scientists do not make the effort to show and make to understand the public how science work, how can we believe it will support us ? If we do not give to the society a sample of what the scientific debate is, and what is about ... in the matter, how can we think our work will not be degraded to opinons ? If we do not grow people to understand the problematics of our activities, and the methods to solve them, how can we believe science can be adopted as a better way of thinking, and not just because it provides products ?
On the contrary I appreciate the EGU open access journals where the policy to show discussion papers, both improve the "preprints", and make more careful most of the peer reviews.
Wittgenstein teaches: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
A quick guide to writing a solid peer review
This recent contribution by Nicholas and Gordon can be found here from the EOS AGU Journal of July the 12th. This below the flowchart:
The paper is really a good guide. However, it does not tell all the truth. What moves me as a reviewer (not considering that I accepted duties as associate editor or editor) is the curiosity to know a piece of exciting research a little before the rest of the guys. On the other hand, the expectations, are very often, not maintained by the incoming papers, and very few reward the efforts. However, this allows you to know what people thinks is important today, as opposed to what you (me) think it is, and is all experience gained. This can be summarized as: reviewing keep you close to active research.
A second aspect is that rarely you are completely expert of the subject treated. Most of the details of a paper from Authors you did not frequent before (on a topic you supposedly know enough), refers to paper and methods that you do not completely possess. This add sweat to your work, since you need to search and look to other papers to review one. The positive of this that you increase your knowledge. And the efforts are usually paid back with self-consciousness of what you know of a subject.
With time experience and erudition grow, and therefore the task or reviewing becomes easier, because you start to recognize the presence or absence of the structural patterns that makes of a paper a good paper. Outstanding paper are obviously matter or the science they contain.
Now, going back to my reviews.
The paper is really a good guide. However, it does not tell all the truth. What moves me as a reviewer (not considering that I accepted duties as associate editor or editor) is the curiosity to know a piece of exciting research a little before the rest of the guys. On the other hand, the expectations, are very often, not maintained by the incoming papers, and very few reward the efforts. However, this allows you to know what people thinks is important today, as opposed to what you (me) think it is, and is all experience gained. This can be summarized as: reviewing keep you close to active research.
A second aspect is that rarely you are completely expert of the subject treated. Most of the details of a paper from Authors you did not frequent before (on a topic you supposedly know enough), refers to paper and methods that you do not completely possess. This add sweat to your work, since you need to search and look to other papers to review one. The positive of this that you increase your knowledge. And the efforts are usually paid back with self-consciousness of what you know of a subject.
With time experience and erudition grow, and therefore the task or reviewing becomes easier, because you start to recognize the presence or absence of the structural patterns that makes of a paper a good paper. Outstanding paper are obviously matter or the science they contain.
Now, going back to my reviews.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
About peer review and the tyranny of some
I already talke about the review process and some of its excess. Here it is an informed opinion from Nature. Professor Ploegh talks about the danger to require further but not necessary experiments. I strongly agree with him.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Why did you not choose a gauged basin ?
This is one question that very often reviewers write in commenting my papers, that most of the time, have a conceptual, if not theoretical attitude, on topics where field guys often dominated the scene in the past years. I am sorry: that I am, inclined to be theoretical.
The question is indeed a good question, but the answer is not trivial. Its contrary is: why you experimentalist do not use sound theoretical work to support your measurements ?
As a matter of facts, if our science pretends to be a physical science, experiments are simply necessary and fundamental. Even if, as I wrote in the past, often we "observe events" more than "designing sound controlled experiments" as Galilei would have required (Simply because this is not possible in relevant cases of our science).
However, let's assume I have finally done an experiment (and I did some in my life): what the reviewers would ask me ?
She would ask about the setting of the experiment. He would ask about the calibration of the instruments, and which instruments were used. They would require decent statistical inquires about the results, performing test of consistencies about them. But many times, the simple report of the measurement efforts (especially if considered massive, and difficult) is would be considered valuable enough to have a paper published.
There is clearly no "par condicio" (equal conditions) in this attitude. Reviewers will not request to an experimentalist other than her work is consistent in itself, and, obviously, that it will bring new evidences of confirmations of something in a matter that must be of interest (of course!).
Inverting the roles, they are not required to produce a sound physical theory of their findings. Even if they should, at least, give a look to the work of the more gifted modelers to support quantitatively their statements, and not allowed to silly built on qualitative (in the sense of poor quantitative) and subjective arguments, or on poor mathematics.
For instance, I am really tired to see in field works, at the edge of geomorphology and hydrology, experiments where data are interpreted with homogenous soil characteristics, with very roughly approximated hydraulic conductivities, and, when real measurements are performed, without any trial to assess error bounds, with unspecified instruments' calibration (even when it is known that they have highly non linear responses), and interpreted with art but on the premises od fundamentally flawed models. (Because, hidden or not, written in words or formulas, any interpretation is a model).
On the other side, when with collaborators, I could use data from highly advertised field experiments, I could often touch the indefiniteness of some of their aspects, and, in front of data not able to survive to any systematic analysis of consistence with regards to the delicate aspects we where investigating (quite unknown by definition of our work), I was several times overcome by frustration and disappointment.
However, I am frank, If I had to choose, I believe the current attitude of tolerance on experimental works is correct. Without any tolerance, no paper will be published or written, waiting for the ultimate one where all the things are performed properly, the theory sound, and its explanation crystal clear even to dummy minds. This would definitely block any development of any science, and I prefer the seed of a good idea inside a sea of garbage than no idea. (How many good ideas can you believe to have in life Riccardo, used to say my masters. One, two, maybe three, if you are really good).
But theoretical and conceptual work should be judged with the same attitude.
I think, that after the debate, and a delicate scrutiny, it would be better to let the community decide what is important or not. Otherwise, the most interesting papers could be eliminated from literature, while the most orthodox ones (and "false": modern Ptolemaic models) naturally proliferate and constitute a overwhelming bunch of "not even wrong" contributions. Therefore I vote for controversial but provocative papers to be published. I believe it is better to be wrong than nothing.
This attitude exposes also to other risks: that some groups of researchers, for a reason or another, and often in good faith, negatively influence sectors of a discipline, killing new ideas (which are usually confuse), and just reinforcing existing paradigms. But this is another story.
P.S. - Another additional, but often found statement, refers to thing that should have been done or tempted to have the paper accepted. Not infrequently these questions are of the type:
Please could you find the sense of life ?
Clearly a few words that can imply the involvement of many full life times of research ... without success, as history teaches. Please, my good old sweet reviewers, give me a break. Why you do so to me ?
The question is indeed a good question, but the answer is not trivial. Its contrary is: why you experimentalist do not use sound theoretical work to support your measurements ?
As a matter of facts, if our science pretends to be a physical science, experiments are simply necessary and fundamental. Even if, as I wrote in the past, often we "observe events" more than "designing sound controlled experiments" as Galilei would have required (Simply because this is not possible in relevant cases of our science).
However, let's assume I have finally done an experiment (and I did some in my life): what the reviewers would ask me ?
She would ask about the setting of the experiment. He would ask about the calibration of the instruments, and which instruments were used. They would require decent statistical inquires about the results, performing test of consistencies about them. But many times, the simple report of the measurement efforts (especially if considered massive, and difficult) is would be considered valuable enough to have a paper published.
There is clearly no "par condicio" (equal conditions) in this attitude. Reviewers will not request to an experimentalist other than her work is consistent in itself, and, obviously, that it will bring new evidences of confirmations of something in a matter that must be of interest (of course!).
Inverting the roles, they are not required to produce a sound physical theory of their findings. Even if they should, at least, give a look to the work of the more gifted modelers to support quantitatively their statements, and not allowed to silly built on qualitative (in the sense of poor quantitative) and subjective arguments, or on poor mathematics.
For instance, I am really tired to see in field works, at the edge of geomorphology and hydrology, experiments where data are interpreted with homogenous soil characteristics, with very roughly approximated hydraulic conductivities, and, when real measurements are performed, without any trial to assess error bounds, with unspecified instruments' calibration (even when it is known that they have highly non linear responses), and interpreted with art but on the premises od fundamentally flawed models. (Because, hidden or not, written in words or formulas, any interpretation is a model).
On the other side, when with collaborators, I could use data from highly advertised field experiments, I could often touch the indefiniteness of some of their aspects, and, in front of data not able to survive to any systematic analysis of consistence with regards to the delicate aspects we where investigating (quite unknown by definition of our work), I was several times overcome by frustration and disappointment.
However, I am frank, If I had to choose, I believe the current attitude of tolerance on experimental works is correct. Without any tolerance, no paper will be published or written, waiting for the ultimate one where all the things are performed properly, the theory sound, and its explanation crystal clear even to dummy minds. This would definitely block any development of any science, and I prefer the seed of a good idea inside a sea of garbage than no idea. (How many good ideas can you believe to have in life Riccardo, used to say my masters. One, two, maybe three, if you are really good).
But theoretical and conceptual work should be judged with the same attitude.
I think, that after the debate, and a delicate scrutiny, it would be better to let the community decide what is important or not. Otherwise, the most interesting papers could be eliminated from literature, while the most orthodox ones (and "false": modern Ptolemaic models) naturally proliferate and constitute a overwhelming bunch of "not even wrong" contributions. Therefore I vote for controversial but provocative papers to be published. I believe it is better to be wrong than nothing.
This attitude exposes also to other risks: that some groups of researchers, for a reason or another, and often in good faith, negatively influence sectors of a discipline, killing new ideas (which are usually confuse), and just reinforcing existing paradigms. But this is another story.
P.S. - Another additional, but often found statement, refers to thing that should have been done or tempted to have the paper accepted. Not infrequently these questions are of the type:
Please could you find the sense of life ?
Clearly a few words that can imply the involvement of many full life times of research ... without success, as history teaches. Please, my good old sweet reviewers, give me a break. Why you do so to me ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)