tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post727630632203996784..comments2024-03-12T03:23:42.976-04:00Comments on NeuroDojo: High information vs. low information scienceZen Faulkeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07811309183398223358noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-21168317324953464982012-10-22T19:37:20.959-04:002012-10-22T19:37:20.959-04:00'high information flow' really depends on ...'high information flow' really depends on how far you cast the net of your literature coverage. What is still relevant for you and what isn't? This is not only confined by your field but also by your own interests as to where you get interesting ideas from.<br />My field is so small, I probably have one or two relevant papers a year. However, there are so many closely related fields in many models systems, humans and robotics, that I basically have to follow the entire literature somehow.<br />And since there is no empirical evidence that journal rank does anything, journal rank is probably the most useless filter one can think of. You might as well have a script pick out random papers from the entire literature:<br />https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VF_jAcDyxdxqH9QHMJX9g4JH5L4R-9r6VSjc7Gwb8ig/edit<br />Thus, what we need is a smart way of tracking the relevant literature. Some attempts to provide such a service here and there (and I'm involved in beta-testing some of them), but at the moment, this simply does not exist.<br />Consequently, I spend about 6-10 hours every week searching the literature. Ironically, this is so much time, that there is usually hardly any time left to actually read what I found.Bjoern Brembshttp://brembs.netnoreply@blogger.com