4 ms·

The scientist seems to be withholding information until her paper gets published. That seems wrong to me.

samplonius 11y ago
Yes, those damn peer reviews are so annoying. I recommend using journals that don't bother to verify anything. - Ranjit Chandra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranjit_Chandra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranjit_Chandra)
- Farnickal 11y ago
  No that is downright stupid and perverse. It's better to disclose the information and debunk it if it is false. Also we're talking about pictures to prove this claim, so calm down, you passive-aggressive, sarcastic prick.
- anaphor 11y ago
  Have you ever heard of post-publication peer review?
  - gcr 11y ago
    Have you ever heard of any reputable venue that does that?
- Joof 11y ago
  It's cool; we can let a small, overworked group of people who may or may not actually be very knowledgeable in that subject peer review it first. Might as well keep the data private forever too because reproducing the work might show something different.
  - Joof 11y ago
    I was up too late and grumpy, but the peer review process (while necessary) does prevent good papers from being published in a reasonable time frame. And acceptance is closer to random than you might expect. Here's a review of the NIPs acceptance process. http://blog.mrtz.org/2014/12/15/the-nips-experiment.html http://blog.mrtz.org/2014/12/15/the-nips-experiment.html Stuff like arXiv is in theory very good for the actual process of science, but so is having free, accessible journals and those don't necessarily exist in every field.
guide42 11y ago
This [0] BBC article says: > El sobrevuelo del lugar de la catástrofe y los meses de análisis fueron financiados por la revista National Geographic, que había impuesto un embargo a la divulgación de la información hasta ahora. Which translate that National Geographic paid for everything and put an embargo (same word) on the information. [0]: http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2015/12/151202_chile_ballenas_sei_varadas_patagonia_wbm http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2015/12/151202_chile_balle...

Yes, those damn peer reviews are so annoying. I recommend using journals that don't bother to verify anything. - Ranjit Chandra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranjit_Chandra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranjit_Chandra)

Farnickal 11y ago
No that is downright stupid and perverse. It's better to disclose the information and debunk it if it is false. Also we're talking about pictures to prove this claim, so calm down, you passive-aggressive, sarcastic prick.
anaphor 11y ago
Have you ever heard of post-publication peer review?
- gcr 11y ago
  Have you ever heard of any reputable venue that does that?
Joof 11y ago
It's cool; we can let a small, overworked group of people who may or may not actually be very knowledgeable in that subject peer review it first. Might as well keep the data private forever too because reproducing the work might show something different.
- Joof 11y ago
  I was up too late and grumpy, but the peer review process (while necessary) does prevent good papers from being published in a reasonable time frame. And acceptance is closer to random than you might expect. Here's a review of the NIPs acceptance process. http://blog.mrtz.org/2014/12/15/the-nips-experiment.html http://blog.mrtz.org/2014/12/15/the-nips-experiment.html Stuff like arXiv is in theory very good for the actual process of science, but so is having free, accessible journals and those don't necessarily exist in every field.

guide42 11y ago

This [0] BBC article says: > El sobrevuelo del lugar de la catástrofe y los meses de análisis fueron financiados por la revista National Geographic, que había impuesto un embargo a la divulgación de la información hasta ahora. Which translate that National Geographic paid for everything and put an embargo (same word) on the information. [0]: http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2015/12/151202_chile_ballenas_sei_varadas_patagonia_wbm http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2015/12/151202_chile_balle...