This is something I hope they never do to my work:
(sorry, I can’t get the link to go to the right page)
Ah, a quick google helps me find out that futility analysis is a form of interim analysis, i.e. you look at the data before the experiment is finished to see if it is worth continuing.
I have come across experiments where that should have been done that before the start.
I’m glad we didn’t have YouTube when I was an undergrad, I might have become a developmental biologist…
I know you only really read this for The Beast, so this is him this morning:
According to one participant in a discussion we had over coffee this afternoon, all the popular blogs are about fashion and the latest styles. This may explain why Kimi1 has started writing about wigs.
He’s actually worried about whether having bigwigs on your list of authors makes a paper more cited, and has found a paper that suggests it can do, if there aren’t too many authors. So, if you’re a bigwig, go over there for advice. If you’re not, go over there to see why your bigwig boss has just developed such strange ideas about authorship.
I’ve been busy over the past week, what with teaching last Friday, and reading books about mermaids, so I haven’t blogged. As always I have n ideas to blog about, but for now I just want to recommend this lovely little post on Language Log, which is really about a love of words. The challenge for Drs. Gee and Clarke is to get either ‘lant’ or ‘midlenting’ into a future issue of Nature. Extra marks for sneaking ‘redeless’ in there in such a way that it’s clear what it means (just getting it in should be easy: find a story about politicians or managers).
I must return to to unfinished business. I’ve been way from the blog thanks to a trapped nerve in my neck. This was the outcome of a charm cast on me by a foul witch (hmm perhaps “fowl witch” is a more appropriate moniker) – I wasn’t aware that she had been studying the Dark Arts, but it may also explain how she found 12 Grimmauld Place so easily.
So, back to the unfinished business. The fowl witch (who really is a pain in the neck1) cast her charm as a feeble attempt to win the latest round of our contest. This could go on for a long time, but I had better end it now, before Matt realizes what he has done by allowing us to put up YouTube videos.
There are some things it is not safe to put above the fold….
Over at FriendFeed, Cameron Naylor asked the following on Friday:
Does anyone know whether the impact of papers in PLoS Biol is more or less evenly spread than those in e.g. Cell/Nature/Science – vague recollection that 20% of the papers in CNS make up 80% of the impact factor
The discussion walked around a bit, but nobody presented any actual data. So, yesterday when I was stuck cat-sitting by the computer (or, to be precise, The Beast was engaged in human-sitting), I thought I would chase the data up and see what it said.
Over the past few months quite a few of us have1 been getting little bits and pieces into Nature. This week, as some of you have already noticed, it’s my turn. The streak will have to end now, though, as we have voluntarily given up our secret weapon.
I just wanted to make sure I could put the logo and link up – I’m not trying to drop any subtle hints.
