Archive for: October, 2012

There's a reason why it's in that journal

Oct 31 2012 Published by under Uncategorized

A while back a PI and I were discussing a few papers of interest to me. The PI is an expert in the method used in all the papers, while I'm a bit of a novice. While going over one of the papers he kind of hemmed and hawed a bit at the methods. Pointed out a few statical issues that I didn't catch at first glance. He the paused for a moment and said "there's a reason they published in that journal"

That journal being one of mediocre repute. Not C/N/S. Not a not society or field wide journal. Just a ho-hum, yes I've heard of it but it isn't anything special journal. I felt a little taken aback by that. Even though he'd already pointed out issues with the paper itself. Even though he meant that the paper probably had been rejected elsewhere (I got a vague feeling he had reviewed it).

Is "there's a reason they published it in that journal" too far a conclusion to jump? It seems so, given all this talk of judging papers not by the Impact Factor of the journal but by the paper itself. Which, of course, makes total sense.

Yet, last week when a new paper by a well known (to me) researcher made it's way to by inbox one of the first things I saw that it was uncharacteristically in a 'mediocre journal' and I immediately thought it must have been rejected at all the high IF journals he usually publishes in. That feels like an unwarranted assumption. Yet I cannot imagine that he would send the paper to this journal first. Does that mean the paper has some fatal flaw? Or perhaps he just couldn't talk up the impact as well this time?

I haven't even read the paper yet.

5 responses so far

Science job search in pictures

Oct 25 2012 Published by under Uncategorized

I will write about the process at some point. For now these two pictures basically describe what I (and many others) are doing.

First it is like this:

(source)
And then mostly this:

(source)

One response so far

Science Conference going

Oct 22 2012 Published by under Uncategorized

Since there is a lot of conference talk going around I'll share some thoughts that me and my IRL people have been contemplating. The question being which science conferences are on your schedule and why? How do you pick what to put in the rotation? The conferences at which you learn the most? The ones that cover areas you are most familiar with? How many conferences is enough? etc. I'm not totally happy with my rotation as it is. I've been trying to add one more conference to my 'usually go' list. Here are things as they currently stand.

SfN I only put in the rotation a few years ago as my research has slowly meandered into areas for which SfN is useful. For me the conference is still mostly about learning areas I don't really know much about. Despite this fact that I have somehow gotten talks. On the other hand it is not the conference for 'my people' and I usually don't run into many researchers that I read. Status: Maybe.

Tiny sub-field conference. One of the main ones for me and "my people". I think I've only missed it once. I alluded to earlier, it is a small, somewhat insular conference that has delusions of staying that may despite growing demand. That creates some friction. High relevance at this conference, but the size means not much is actually presented and the chances of giving a symposium are very low. Status: Yes for now.

Medium society conference. The other main one for my people. Perhaps not quite as high on the relevance scale since it is broader. However since it is about 5 times the size there's much more being presented and a better chance at getting to participate. Status: Yes.

Medium interdisciplinary conference. Somehow this is a good conference. This conference has high proportion of things that seem interesting that I will probably never use (or cite). Status: Yes, apparently.

Some other neuro conference. I can't go to two neuro conferences every year, this one seems that it might be more focused towards areas that I am familiar with. Status: Maybe

Giant society conferences #1, #2. Never been to either. People I know who have reported back generally give them a meh. Not sure that the problem is. Too broad? Too many things my people aren't really interested in? Funny thing some of these big society conferences, they don't really hold together well. Breadth can be nice. You may learn something new. It may also feel like there are just multiple conferences running concurrently. Status: Probably not.

Old society conference. Again, never been and when I ask around the consensus is that only grey beards and people working on things last popular 40 years ago went. Ouch. That's a tough rep to have. Maybe it's exaggerated, but I can't imagine it's random. Status: Definitely not.

Ok that's a lot. I was thinking 4 conferences would be plenty for regular attendance, with a mix of focused sub-field and broad conferences. That seems like a good approach?

2 responses so far

Opening

Oct 07 2012 Published by under Uncategorized

This is half introductory post, half test for me to make sure I know how this works.

Apparently I am moving my blog here to Scientopia to be a part of the great free agent buy up. I will get some proper posts up soon enough, and maybe clean up the place a little bit. For now just a hello. If you don't know me from my other blog or from the Twitters, I am Bashir, a postdoc in a sciencey area. More later...

2 responses so far