Jacquelyn Gill contemplates retractions.
Sarcozona provides a great example of translating English into English.
Simply Statistics asks if we academics should just blog our papers. Hey, I did that.
David Wescott at It’s Not a Lecture chastises science writers for merely mocking those who lie about science.
Dr. Doyenne covers a very interesting paper about what happens to papers that are rejected. One of the major conclusions of the paper is that articles that are rejected once get more citations later. The effect is real, but tiny. I also pick this up at the Scholarly Kitchen.
This is a brilliant example of the difference between significance (in the statistical sense) and significance (in the sense of important). They were only able to pull this out because they had a sample size of tens of thousands of papers. Hat tip to Joe Pickrell for pulling this out.
I have a cameo at SV-POW! on scientific articles and blogging.
No comments:
Post a Comment