A subjective discussion of the meanings of “subjective” and “objective”
Scientists are objective. Personal bias is not acceptable and interpretation that is subject to the observer is frowned upon. The above statement is the ideal to which we presumably strive to attain as scientists. The reality that we construct in our research is independent of the person doing the research. So, when someone performs some […]
Why study duck penises?
If you ever needed an eloquent argument for funding basic science, please read this excellent editorial by Patricia Brennan. A particular highlight: Investment in the NSF [National Science Foundation, the U.S. government agency that funds scientific research] is just over $20 per year per person, while it takes upward of $2,000 per year per person […]
Scientists need “adequate communication skills”
…we should focus on equipping Earth scientists with adequate communication skills, and heighten their understanding of how their words … will be perceived. So says the Editorial “Communication at Risk” in the February 2013 issue of Nature Geoscience about the L’Aquila earthquake trial. I couldn’t agree more. Thanks to Martin Gallagher for pointing out this […]
Prescient Poem about Writing for Publication
April 2, 2013 Filed under Blog, Featured, Publishing
Writing for the AMS [American Meteorological Society] George W. Mindling Official in Charge, Weather Bureau Office Atlanta, Georgia, March 29, 1939 Did you ever write a paper for the AMS In a Weather Bureau office without great distress While the sky was dark and gloomy with a threat of coming rain And the phone was […]
The Golden Rule of Reviewing
The Golden Rule If you submit N papers per year, you should perform 2N to 3N per year. It is only the right thing to do. If you impose a submission onto the peer-reviewing system, then you owe it to the system to perform two or three reviews to make up for it. The peer-reviewing […]
