• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Fuck you, Science!

Well, it is leading the way to open access science and a 3.2 impact factor isn't shameful. PLOS Biology is probably a more respected outlet but regardless, I think the legitimacy of PLOS will be much more widely questioned hereafter.
 
3.2 impact factor is pretty bad, PLOS Biology and PLOS Pathogens are pretty good as far as impact factor and what gets published in them. PLOS one really is hit or miss, a lot of time if you don't have a complete story but still good data you can get it into PLOS One. There are some papers in PLOS One that are some of the most cited papers out there simply for the fact something was stumbled upon, its impact was unknown, and when someone finally puts something groundbreaking together turns out the original finding is buried in some shitty PLOS One ramblings.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
3.2 impact factor is pretty bad, PLOS Biology and PLOS Pathogens are pretty good as far as impact factor and what gets published in them. PLOS one really is hit or miss, a lot of time if you don't have a complete story but still good data you can get it into PLOS One. There are some papers in PLOS One that are some of the most cited papers out there simply for the fact something was stumbled upon, its impact was unknown, and when someone finally puts something groundbreaking together turns out the original finding is buried in some shitty PLOS One ramblings.
Click to expand...

You must be in the biomedical field or something, because in ecology, 3.2 is pretty good. Ecology, the top long form, full research article journal in the field, has a 5.1 ipf, so 3.2 is not too bad, for a guy like me.
 
Yeah I wasn't even thinking about other fields, plus I really wanted to draw Townie out. You here that townie the only way to determine good science is impact factor!
 
birdman said:
You must be in the biomedical field or something, because in ecology, 3.2 is pretty good. Ecology, the top long form, full research article journal in the field, has a 5.1 ipf, so 3.2 is not too bad, for a guy like me.
Click to expand...
It is definitely different in biomedical research. Many schools have a policy that articles published in a journal with an impact factor under 4 at the time of publication do not count for consideration of promotion/tenure. Whether that is a good policy or a fair metric is up for debate but in biomedical research any truly well done study should be published at or above that level.

TWMD is right that PLoSOne is where many biomedical researchers publish smaller projects that aren't fully fleshed out, especially since graduate students are often required to publish as part of their Ph.D. Sometimes you find really cool research buried in there for a multitude of reasons. Many times they are weak studies.
 
Holy crap, less than 4 doesn't count! Yikes, I've published 31 papers and only one is in a journal with over a 4.0 impact factor, Journal of Applied Ecology at 4.8. I did, for the first time, try my hand at open access journals. We got a paper accepted at PeerJ this month. I've been pretty pleased with the journal's process so far, but the reputation of the Journal is still suspect amongst my peers. No deities have yet appeared on the pages of PeerJ so at least there is that.
 
BigTreeDeac said:
It is definitely different in biomedical research. Many schools have a policy that articles published in a journal with an impact factor under 4 at the time of publication do not count for consideration of promotion/tenure. Whether that is a good policy or a fair metric is up for debate but in biomedical research any truly well done study should be published at or above that level.
Click to expand...
Perfect topic for this thread.
 
Cutting edge work from an impact 5 journal!

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/08/0309132515623368.abstract

Glaciers, gender, and science
A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research

Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.
 
pourdeac said:
Cutting edge work from an impact 5 journal!

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/08/0309132515623368.abstract

Glaciers, gender, and science
A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research

Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.
Click to expand...

"Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work is based upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation under grant #1253779."

Someone at the US national science foundation should lose their job.
 
Agreed. This was for the science snobs who condescend on the board.
You don't have to live long to experience complete 180's from the science community. Thirty years ago, eggs were not recommended due to their cholesterol. Today, I got an healthy tip email:

Eggs contain an essential nutrient, choline, which helps with brain function by maintaining cell membrane structure. Two eggs contain 250mg of choline, with the recommended intake being 550mg/day for men and 425mg/day for women. Pregnant women should pay special attention to choline consumption, as choline contributes to fetal brain development.
Click to expand...

I did note the irony that the article itself picks on Climate Science in the headline because it makes an "exciting headline."
 
ReplacementDeac said:
and like all others people, scientists act out of their own self interests.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

interstellar-04.jpg
 
Fuck you, Science! You took Townie away from us, and he'd be perfect for this thread right now!
 
I think there is a huge difference in hard sciences and social sciences and anything that involves the large multiple variables that exist because of humans. Its one of the reasons why there is such a bigger push in drug development to utilize the large metadata genomic studies being conducted and we will see more personalized medicine because of it.
 
That is a poor article. The premise is that a theory that has been tested hundreds of times is wrong because of one YUGE study that didn't get the same findings.
 
PhDeac said:
That is a poor article. The premise is that a theory that has been tested hundreds of times is wrong because of one YUGE study that didn't get the same findings.
Click to expand...
You apparently didn't go to the original Slate article. It was a huge study at over 24 locations...nothing. If the effect was real and "established fact", it would have shown up when people at 24 locations were trying to see the effect.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...n_psychology_may_have_just_been_debunked.html
 
Why would 24 locations debunk hundreds of prior attempts?
 
PhDeac said:
Why would 24 locations debunk hundreds of prior attempts?
Click to expand...
It doesn't debunk the prior results per se, but it could certainly debunk any certainty of conclusions made from those studies.......absolutely. That's how science works.

That said, given the size of the newer study (sheer size, multiple sites, multiple collaborators) and since they are making claims that it throws the theory back into la la land, they no doubt corrected for problems/issues/criticisms noted in the prior research. That would pretty much put the final nail in the coffin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top