VWXYNot? Comment(s) of the week:
SB for "One caveat to “open science” that is seldom discussed is the importance of achieving intra-group consensus on this issue (and the consequent difficulty it poses to individuals wishing to adopt this model in practice, even if they fully back it in principle); I wouldn’t dream of posting any of my findings online because they rely heavily on other group members’ unpublished data.
[...]
Also, my gut feeling is that people who are most heavily invested into their projects have the least to lose from posting the data online before submitting to a journal; if your experiments take years to do, it is very unlikely that someone could replicate them before you submit yours for publication…"
Beth Snow for "My first few papers from my PhD are under my former (i.e., ex-husband’s) surname, with more recent papers under my maiden name (i.e., the one I currently go by). I put a note on my publication list that older papers were published under a former surname, and it’s not been a problem for people reading my CV. Without the note, however, people could not figure out why I had “M.E. Simpson” underlined for the older papers and “M.E. Snow” underlined for the more recent ones. I thought it would be pretty obvious, but honestly, people were totally flummoxed without the explanation."
Massimo for "I am so jealous, I wish I could change my name too, and then tell everyone that my h-index is actually twice as much as it is, it is just that I have been publishing under different names…"
CromerCrox for "Modesty is an overrated virtue. Publication entitles you to a certain amount of self-congratulation."
Elizabeth for "I got married about 6 months after receiving my PhD in 2010 and changed my last name to my husbands (which I also consider an upgrade, went from 6 letters to 9, there’s a very cool looking family crest associated with the name in Norway, and I’m the only one with my new name in Pubmed that I can find so far). "
Bean-Mom for "It can feel strange to still publish when you’re not still at the bench, no? When I held a science writing/editing job somewhat similar to yours, I was offered authorship on a manuscript that I worked very hard on. It was so disorganized that I basically had to rewrite it from scratch–including giving advice on experimental design, figures, etc. It was a really weird position to be in; I’d been hired as a writer, not a postdoc or staff scientist, so it felt odd giving scientific input. But everyone was appreciative, particularly the Very Busy Supervisor who was too busy to supervise. When they offered me authorship on that paper, I turned it down as I didn’t feel I’d quite met the standard for authorship, but also because I thought it was an awful manuscript (even after all my help) and I didn’t want to be associated with it!
And the review that I worked on in that particular lab, which I thought I really did deserve authorship on? Not only did I not get authorship–they forgot to acknowledge me!
C’est la vie. New lab now, working at the bench and writing for myself. Okay, this comment has gone on too long. I just remember how odd it felt to be in that position, and to realize that you can still publish even when you’re not at the bench. (I guess no PIs are actually at the bench, and they all publish!)"
and Frank Norman for "Always good to see your name up in lights.
Maybe you could have put both names (CA Dunn and CA Ennis) on? ;-) "
Post(s) of the Week: The Excitable Scientist for "(Im)perfect role models" (on "the lack of correlation between having pleasant interactions with somebody, and that person’s ability to influence your life in a positive way")
and Massimo for "An ordinary Sunday evening" (buying train tickets in Italy is apparently much less straightforward - but much more hilarious - than in normal other countries)
Archives:
October 2008 - March 2009; April 2009 - September 2009; October 2009 - March 2010; April 2010 - September 2010; October 2010 - February 2011; March 2011 - September 2011; October 2011 - March 2012; April 2012 - September 2012
YEY! I like all of them
Funny. I really needed funny today! THanks Cath. Happy weekend!
same to you!
Love that paper turnaround! Is that why Elsevier is so expensive?!
well, if it takes more than two years to get an accepted paper published online, the added value must be simply phenomenal!
Ha! I was just going to say that my favorite part was that after 11 years of review (?) it took a further 2 and a half years to publish online and another 3-15 months to print, depending on when in 2009 this finally appeared. Hope this person wasn’t counting on this for a tenure app or anything!
Typewriters! *That’s* what we need to improve our next-gen sequencing throughput. Thanks, Cath!
Terrorization seems more apt, somehow
Pingback: Bragging Rights Central: New Archive Post | VWXYNot?