On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> > Last week PLoS ONE received its first impact factor — a stunning 4.351.
>
>
> Stunning? Nature = 51.15 Science = 47.72; and you're bragging about a
> 4.351?
>
>> > This puts the open access jour
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/4/2013 3:35 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:44 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/3/2013 2:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
You're making the same mistake as John Clark, confusing the physical
computer with the
On Sunday, April 7, 2013 7:24:12 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 11:38:24AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> >
> >
> > But why do you agree with the odds? If a very low ranking journal got
> > astonishingly lucky and published a paper of HUGE transcendental
> importan
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> It does mean you could replicate World War II if you replicate the
>> complex arrangement of matter. It does not mean you would necessarily
>> understand it if you replicated it, any more than a photocopier
>> understands the image it is c
On Monday, April 8, 2013 7:42:22 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:50 PM, meekerdb >
> wrote:
> > On 4/4/2013 3:35 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:44 PM, meekerdb
> >> >
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 4/3/2013 2:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
On Monday, April 8, 2013 8:53:58 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> It does mean you could replicate World War II if you replicate the
> >> complex arrangement of matter. It does not mean you would necessarily
> >> understand it
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
> What I'm trying to say is that I believe you do not distinguish:
> A) Science the method of inquiry
> from
> B) Science the human institution
>
And I am saying is you do not understand that only one of the following is
true:
A) Science can sometimes
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 Russell Standish wrote:
> The top two journals have a policy of not even sending out half of their
> submissions to peer review.
Is it really only half? There are so many science articles written and so
many are crap I would have thought it was a lot higher than half; I gue
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 01:55:22PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> You want to bet? I mean it, I'll bet you that there is a 50% chance that at
> least one of the next Nobel Prizes will be for work first publised in
> Science or Nature and a 0% chance it was for stuff published in PLoS
ONE.
I will
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323611604578398943650327184
WSJ Article
"Fortunately, exceptional mathematical fluency is required in only a few
disciplines, such as particle physics, astrophysics and information theory.
Far more important throughout the rest of science is the ab
10 matches
Mail list logo