Recent Comments
- Sylvia McLain on Book and movie reviews – for fun
- Adam Hatchl on Book and movie reviews – for fun
- Steve Drevik on Regency restoration – Part 1, use the right product.
- Sylvia McLain on Regency restoration – Part 1, use the right product.
- rpg on Regency restoration – Part 1, use the right product.
-
Recent Posts
- Regency Restoration Part 2 – Who doesn’t love a good old Regency tiled floor?
- Regency restoration – Part 1, use the right product.
- Diversity? Who needs your diversity, we already know we are the smartest people in the room.
- On Serena (not the Tennis player) and the Smokies. Read the book, avoid the film.
- On double standards – in Tennis and otherwise
Archives
- October 2019
- October 2018
- September 2018
- March 2018
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- May 2017
- January 2017
- September 2016
- May 2016
- September 2015
- August 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- January 2015
- October 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- November 2013
- October 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- September 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
Meta
Blogroll
Category Archives: scientific publishing
On ‘lower impact’ publishing – it’s better than you might think.
Over the course of the last two or so years, I have had a number of personal issues to deal with. Family illnesses, the sudden death of my older brother and some other things (I will spare you the gory … Continue reading
Posted in Impact Factor, scientific publishing, Uncategorized
22 Comments
We’ve all got troubles (including the Open Science Framework)
Surprisingly to some and not-so-surprisingly to others, we scientists have our own fair share of troubles in the way we perform our day job – bias, fraud, irreproducibility, lost results, bad data management, difficulty in publishing non-conclusive results. We also … Continue reading
Posted in Bias, scientific publishing
Tagged Open Science Network, The Trouble with Scientists
2 Comments
Am I having impact?
For the last few days there has been some buzz around the non-use of Impact Factors as a criteria for the UK’s Research Excellent Framework. Richard Catlow (head of the Chemistry REF panel) put it in writing here in an … Continue reading
Posted in Impact Factor, science writing, scientific publishing
Tagged Impact factor, scientific publishing
2 Comments
What’s in a name?
I had a boyfriend back in the day who wrote music semi-professionally. The best bit of composing a piece of music, according to the boy, was the creative process with another person – that toing and froing of thoughts and … Continue reading
Most people don’t worry this much…
is what one of my collaborators told me this week. She was talking about my science, not about my over-arching propensity to worry about everything (although I have that too). I am running a series of experiments, mostly focused on … Continue reading
Why am I writing this?
On scientific publication I have been working on some publications, you know those results-based things that scientists write, submit, are peer-reviewed and with a bit of luck get published in a fantastic journal and then with not as much luck … Continue reading
