Or become editor of a journal and then publish all your own stuff there.
Just like the editor of *Chaos, Solitons and Fractals* (Elsevier) did. Story
at:
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081126/full/456432a.html
or more accessibly in blogs at
http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2008/12/nature_on_el_nas
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:40 PM, John Kennison wrote:
>
>
> Maybe in the near future, researchers will publish papers on their web sites
> and journals would consist of stars (and maybe other symbols) and links.
>
In a sense that's what already happens, e
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
> [Original Message]
> From: glen e. p. ropella
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Date: 1/29/2009 2:12:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Homeostasis
...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:20 PM
To: russ.abb...@gmail.com
Cc: friam
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Homeostasis by Peer Review
Russ,
What you propose here is actually more elaborate and interesting than what I
had in mind. It's what I proposed PLUS behavioral and brain sci
son
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
> [Original Message]
> From: glen e. p. ropella
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Date: 1/29/2009 12:44:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Homeostasis by Peer Review
>
> Thu
e. p. ropella
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> > Date: 1/29/2009 12:44:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Homeostasis by Peer Review
> >
> > Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 28/01/09 07:34 PM:
> > > [.
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 29/01/09 12:37 PM:
> [...] it all
> boils down to a one-bit decision: either you are going to read the sucker
> or you arent.
Not that I'm argumentative or anything; but it's not just binary. I
have at least 3 modes of reading: 1) read and integrate, 2) sloppy
r
plexity Coffee Group
> Date: 1/29/2009 12:44:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Homeostasis by Peer Review
>
> Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 28/01/09 07:34 PM:
> > [...] why not
> > have every article published and every article rated by a number of
stars,
> > and t
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 28/01/09 07:34 PM:
> [...] why not
> have every article published and every article rated by a number of stars,
> and then everybody could set their browser to the minimum number of stars
> we are willing to tolerate. Those of us who don't want to be subject to
>
e weird stupid stuff that goes nowhere. We readers are really
the problem.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
> [Original Message]
> From: Peter Lissaman
> To:
> Date: 1/27/2009 1:14:26 PM
> Sub
Peter-This is an interesting proposal. Having served on the editorial board of a number of medical publications, I agree that the peer review process tends to preserve the status quo. The standard for an established author from a "reputable institution" may be, at least unconsciously, different f
Hi,
Or you could separate the review process from the publication process.
E.g. pre-print repositories could provide peer-review services. If a
journal wants a paper it can search for "highly regarded" articles in
pre-print repositories and request from authors for the copyright
permissions to pub
Peer Review is indeed an excellent preserver of status quo. For the AIAA
(the main aerospace institution) the standard procedure is that the signed
draft paper is submitted by editors to reviewers, who then send anonymous
comments to the author. Twenty years ago, as a Fellow of said august
Instit
13 matches
Mail list logo
