upon meetimg a random expat and talking with him(this is invariable) for about an hour, I discover that he is either an antisemetic or antiblack. Usually also anti LGBT and concerned with communism overtaking the world
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
fuck i love this in all its weirdness
well not next to him sure^yeah for real. The fact that she ultimately refused to fly with the guy--ffsI'd be p embarrassed and probably not want 2 fly next to him either
Is a phrase older than me that I find so fucking annoying. It assumes two things: 1) That the statement in question is actually factually correct but 2) politically inconvenient. Most times however, its neither. Discuss.
that one guy with the afro avatar
Why wouldn't Clinton survive two terms? Who do people think would beat her in four years?
Hispanics looks like they're being welded onto the Democrats, the economy's looking up, Trump is defining the Republican brand as being about prejudice and thuggery. Even Charles Koch is thinking about voting for Clinton.
most biomed research is a terrible joke + big waste of monies. because people are stupid, and lazy, and most biomed research is done by biologists, biochemists, and MDs who are terrible at just about everything and dont understand statistics + math, signals/systems analysis, have any clue how the instrumentation and methodologies they use work, and arent taught important critical thinking skills in their academic programs (and then can easily slide by without ever picking them up). everything has to be eye popping and a cure-all/chase current trends to get grant funding except for v lucky/smart research labs (like the one i work in) that are well funded due to close ties w/ industry and work on things that are actually immediately applicable and can be tested/utilized quickly. NIH and other orgs set ridiculous benchmarks for initiatives and grant funding programs so that you have to make absurd lofty claims about how ur research saves lives, but its based off of untested bullshit because nobody can get a grant to do the boring, instructive more "basic" applied research.
like, 50 fucking years ago somebody discovered some stupid enzyme, and then a few dozens papers were published that purported to have figured out mostly what it does and how it does it. Now, because all that bullshit was published nobody will ever do a systematic inquiry to clearly map the domain in which said enzyme functions because it isn't 'novel' or 'groundbreaking' despite the fact obvious utility exists in terms of system design + quality control + efficiency in doing so. A comprehensive study on something we already have 'sorta figured out' will never get accepted to any but the very lowest tier journals and nobody makes their career there. there is also a COMPLETE lack of accountability whatsoever in spinning failures and insignificance into success and breakthroughs. I cannot stress enough how incredibly little accountability there is. I could write up anything and publish it and as long as I am not too outrageous it wont ever matter because if anybody even tried to replicate my bullshit it would basically be impossible and the only thing it would mean is they totally suck at research bc i did it and they failed. The people who review papers also don't care at all (unless the paper disagrees w/ their research) and usually make little effort to read, or really understand what a manuscript says. also note that reviewers are often either white ppl who pretend to understand the science or asians/indians who pretend they can read/write in english.
Also quality control for most biological reagents are a huge failure (mainly due to QA exclusively using awful, simple + inexpensive tests like end-point assays) that result in enormous lot-to-lot variation and completely unclear differences across various formulations. Typically QA will be performed using whatever shitty insensitive methodology that reagent was initially discovered with, which was typically discovered on accident under very suboptimal conditions. Typically these companies and their protocols are also ridiculously opaque and nobody who utilizes them have the faintest clue about what the fuck they are actually using, or doing. Software used to analyze data is the worst and nobody ever understands what they are actually doing, analyzing, or how to interpret results they get.
also almost all animal models for almost everything, despite what anyone says, are horrible stand-ins for human physiological systems. likewise 'model diseases' for said test animals are almost never very good models, and almost nothing that works on cells in a dish will work when you scale up to tissue, and nothing that works on tissue grown in a lab will scale up when you test it on a an organ, and even if something worked at the whole-organ level it will undoubtedly fail when you test it on an entire organ system. if you even got something that was an effective treatment when utilizing an entire organ system, and by some miracle of god it ended up being effective on full on humans you probably had to make them choke down meds that functionally gave them aids and raped their immune system to get it to work. or, you find it only works for a very limited timeframe and/or only on blonde-haired patients named ralph because the typical human has tens of millions of genetic mutations and random other garbage variation. its part of the reason 'early diagnosis' is pushed down the publics throat so much; coupled w/ increases in '5-year survival rates' and other completely meaningless statistical garbage it actually looks like things in bioscience/med are rapidly improving.
so in the end its much easier and beneficial to write your papers in the most dense way possible, with the most convoluted analyses and frustratingly nonlinear and unclear trains of thought to reach conclusions, and just make sure that the people at science who you recommend review your submission have a limited relationship with the field you work in (enough that they feel they ought to know what ur doing ) and only tangential knowledge of your methodologies and techniques, and that way they will be to scared to ask any real questions or give a critical analysis back in a review, and they will only say things like 'need some more data points' or 'should also look at X' or 'figures need 2 b more clear'. reference several of their papers out of context for good measure. or else photoshop a bunch of pink fluorescent looking dots onto a black background and use it as your central evidence in a nature publication for how you just created a new way to generate stem cells and as long as you don't make outlandish claims about how ridiculously easy it is to use, and how anybody can do it in their kitchen sink in 15 minutes with a salt shaker, and accidentally use the exact same photoshopped image in two other nature publications you can be director of your own multi-million dollar research initiative and have a sweet professorship at harvard and dozens of other researchers across the world will rabidly defend you+ ur study against anyone who points out how ridiculous it is until it is proven bullshit well beyond a reasonable doubt. and then you just go on a sabbatical for a year.
anyways, running on almost no sleep + very grumpy so plz excuse my somewhat offtopic ramble
also thisI only had time to read the first part, but I found this funny:QuoteAlas, the feedback loop doesn’t seem to work so well, and without some signal to correct them, biologists get stuck in their bad habits, favoring efficiency in publication over the value of results.
Yeah those bad habits of getting publications and having a career/life over possibly providing value to somebody else N years later. I've said it before, lofty ideals might have worked well when science was a small gentleman's sport of tenured professors, in the current publication rat race it is starting to look like a liability. Even if they don't outright cheat, there will be people cutting corners on quality. Science needs better validation of results, and incentives in general for that matter. This doesn't mean that everything is crap, but the ratio is definitely worse than it could be.
I'm sorry. What I meant to say was "free college, yo!"
whats your username?
check the stories page
The publishers print bound copies of journals, track citations/journal impact, advertise journals, organize websites and within-journal search functions, etc. They don't generally administrative the peer review process at all, in my experience; that's handled by each journal's editorial board, which is just a bunch of professors from the discipline(s) relevant to the journal's content. The actual, detailed work of peer review is generally handled by whoever the editorial board knows within a discipline and thinks would be good to review each individual article.
Journal impact is primarily determined by the importance of its editorial board within the discipline and by the importance of the work published in it, as judged primarily by the researchers that read and contribute to it. To a significant extent, journals that were important tend to continue to be important; journals with good reputations attract better work because they're harder to publish in and it's a bigger deal for your career to publish in them, and as a result good reputations beget good submissions beget good reputations.