hasjekyll

3 ms·

1.
Survey of well-being among (French) Astrophysics researchers(arxiv.org)
1 points by hasjekyll 5y ago|0 comments
2.
by hasjekyll 5y ago
Completely agree - the quality of peer-review is a lottery. Sometimes you get an excellent referee making good points, other times you get a referee solely focussed on making sure you cite their work. And, occasionally, you get a referee wh
3.
by hasjekyll 5y ago
Agreed. Peer-review is essential. I do like the idea of a public peer review however, similar to that in the https://joss.theoj.org/ - I had a really pleasant experience reviewing a paper for JOSS. I think sometimes reviewe
4.
by hasjekyll 5y ago
I guess it just stops arxiv from turning into vixra.org
5.
by hasjekyll 5y ago
I do a similar thing, but the papers I'm interested in are usually a bit too niche for a general audience. That's one of the things I don't like about academic papers, particularly in my field (astro), we don't tailor ou
6.
by hasjekyll 5y ago
You can use things like arxivsorter and benty-fields for this. You give them a list of papers you've published, or authors you are interested in and then get recommendations. The recommendations can be up and down voted to improve futu
7.
by hasjekyll 5y ago
> Let's face it, people don't want to watch a tiny team from nowhere vs a giant in UCL The ESL encourages what you say people don't want. As founders can't be relegated they play every year even if they currently have
8.
by hasjekyll 5y ago
Ah, thanks, I missed that. I also somehow missed the “Just work” requirement which could rule out hugo. In my experience it requires quite a bit of tinkering to get going.
9.
by hasjekyll 5y ago
What's wrong with hugo + self-hosted nginx on a VPS?
10.
by hasjekyll 6y ago
I spent my early phd years working on the missing baryons, and it's a really interest topic. Theoretically the problem is solved, and hopefully in the next few years newer X-ray telescopes and local FRB detections will confirm the thes
11.
by hasjekyll 6y ago
Unfortunately this happens in astronomy in non-Chinese journals too.
12.
by hasjekyll 6y ago
It's also worth pointing out that LCDM is a cosmological framework. MOND (typically) has no cosmology. And then even if MOND is correct - you likely still need something like DM to explain clusters (particularly the bullet cluster).