apathy

51 ms·

451.
by apathy 10y ago
Epic self-citation (the ONLY citation) but this looks like a major cautionary exposition for fields where expected effect sizes may be very small (eg genetics).
452.
by apathy 10y ago
Wait did they talk about scaling _up_ to datasets of gigabytes in size? Those are the size of toy datasets I use to prototype methods... If this is an accurate reflection of how people approach ML problems then I can understand the "g
453.
Recent advances in post-selection statistical inference [pdf](bioconductor.org)
2 points by apathy 10y ago|0 comments
454.
by apathy 10y ago
Mostly agreed, although I did consider using an HPC allocation to mine bitcoins & hire work study students. But then it turned out that if you study interesting stuff and write the ad correctly, you'll have to beat them away with a
455.
by apathy 10y ago
The review model in the WTC's new world order is open, as it currently is in the F1000 journals, and the Wellcome Trust pays the APC so there is no excuse for grantees not to publish. This slowly kicks away all the bullshit excuses tha
456.
by apathy 10y ago
Right, but students are written into the grant. Ultimately, nobody gives a shit which post doc or student you put on a project; the assumption (often flawed) is that they're all the same as far as the modular budget is concerned. If th
457.
by apathy 10y ago
Note also that collaborations compete with other collaborations for program grants, and R01s ( the measure of a "real" PI) are inherently not collaborative. They are by their very nature competitive. And they are the metric by w
458.
by apathy 10y ago
You are quite mistaken, imho. The pay line for NIH grants is around 15% and for NSF grants it's more like 10%.
459.
by apathy 10y ago
They're a corporation. Some of their decisions are made accordingly. The most interesting bits, though (version controlled dumps of the LaTeX you're working on) do have open implementations. Ultimately, it (like Paperpile) is a s
460.
by apathy 10y ago
No, much bigger. They're going to start requiring OA.
461.
by apathy 10y ago
You've been out of academia for a while, I take it? Publons (mostly uncited) are the coin of the realm. I don't usually bother submitting a methods paper unless I know a few citations are in the tank, but some people publish just
462.
by apathy 10y ago
Oh, same here. Two of my current manuscripts have now been replicated in 3-5 independent clinical cohorts. The thing is, if the field won't even recognize that "ability to produce the same outputs given your inputs" is crit
463.
by apathy 10y ago
The paperwork burden for an NIH grant (relative to a society grant) is often a large scalar multiple. The accountability is often on a par with, or less than, the typical society grant. It mystifies me why this should be so.
464.
by apathy 10y ago
It's different from crowdsourcing, but the source and sink for the funds also tend to be more closely related. Ultimately I don't really believe that major initiatives (eg P01-level grants) can be adequately reviewed by anything o
465.
by apathy 10y ago
That is what Cochrane does in the UK. And indeed it is great.
466.
by apathy 10y ago
At some point it becomes easier to just run the damned experiment. Similar to buying a safe based on making its contents not worth the trouble to crack it. This would be a good first step. "Photoshop for biologists" (as a worksho
467.
by apathy 10y ago
It's a minimum standard and one that many published works cannot meet. Universal enforcement of this minimum would itself be a big step forward.
468.
by apathy 10y ago
researchgate is a fucking cancer. Dark patterns rule there
469.
by apathy 10y ago
You don't consider the journal? You're a better man (or woman) than I am, if so. Otherwise agreed, reluctantly. This implicit trust is frequently manipulated to relax standards by experienced PIs, and in biomedical work that is a
470.
by apathy 10y ago
Every time you use the word "should" you beg the question. Why, exactly, are incentives aligned to make it so? Or is the problem that the incentives are not in fact set up to encourage the desired outcome? Anything else is wish
471.
by apathy 10y ago
I'm only shocked that this is the first time you'd heard of adversarial delaying. When that fails, sometimes PIs will call up their editorially inclined pals and suggest a "bundle" issue to sneak in their lab's work
472.
by apathy 10y ago
any standardized downloadable format (to include VMs or AMIs) also fits these criteria. PDFs aren't inherently bad, but on occasion they are not the best tool to communicate results. For example, Sean Morrison's recent paper on li
473.
by apathy 10y ago
They have one (several, actually). The trouble is that they're called Cell, Nature, and Science; they're all for-profit; and they answer to no one. The Wellcome Trust is walking the walk that NIH talked for the past decade. We wil
474.
by apathy 10y ago
To some (fairly large, in the case of ASCO or ASH or AACR, perhaps smaller for LLS or AHA) degree, the dues-paying professionals in these societies are the crowd. I would say they are a middle ground between something like an experiment.co
475.
by apathy 10y ago
at least three of the above are in fact supported by experiment.com backers, although largely as a "bridge" to more traditional scholarly outlets. That said, if you go out and get extramural funding for your work, generally that
476.
by apathy 10y ago
not really https://github.com/overleaf Some parts of it are (duh?) but overall the system is astoundingly transparent. I think they ended up charging for the sync-to-git option, but if you look at the above repos, it appea
477.
by apathy 10y ago
I've never had a paper rejected from a conference, and I've seen some pretty shitty ones at conferences. I think this statement is pretty field-specific. That said, in the CS and EE fields at least, the use of 10-12 referees for
478.
by apathy 10y ago
Also: I still haven't heard (from either you or the previous parent poster) how journal impact factor can possibly be justifiable as a metric for relevance. Anyone surveying the actual citation distributions at major journals will imme
479.
by apathy 10y ago
I take it you're not familiar with "crowdfunding" sources like the AACR, LLS, ASCO, or other professional societies? As someone who is funded by several of the above, and who noted that their review processes were substantial
480.
by apathy 10y ago
My god I love coming here and reading the travails of real scientists. The journals that have a "no preprint" policy are primarily Cell Press (link) rags and Annals of Oncology. http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog&#x2F

More ›