If you’re still here I have up and joined Scientopia and will be posting there.
Update your whatnots.
Not the concept, so much as the journals.
In my general field there seem to be two options in terms of Open Access journals. The Plos family of journals and another plos-like group. I submitted a paper to PLoS-ONE a while back. There were some issues. Despite the frequent claim of being more efficient than the ‘traditional’ journals my paper set a record for most amount of time “sitting on someone’s desk’. It took about 6 weeks, and some public complaining, to get assigned an editor. A process that traditional journals handle in maybe 5 mins.
Perhaps this is an issue with the breadth of PLoS. I’d previously considered submitting to the slightly more focused Open Access journal. That might have been a more suitable move. Of course last week a lab mate told me that almost the same thing happened to him at that journal. The paper, sat and sat and sat, and then went out for review after ~2 months.
Not exactly accelerating academic publishing.
Both these of these journal groups make a big whoop about improving the publication process, in addition to being open access. That has not been my experience of that of many of my colleagues. The experiences aren’t universally negative. There is some variety. But they certainly aren’t any better than submitting to traditional journals. I think I’ve come to the conclusion that I won’t be submitting anything to either of these journals. (I am writing this before my decision comes in for he PLOS paper, so it’s no influenced by that). Here’s my rationale:
1. They just don’t have the horses. PLOS-ONE seems to have three or four academic editors that may be interested in any research that I will be producing. Since at any point 2 or 3 may be on vacation, combined with the “only edit if you want to” opt in system. Seems like my papers are destined to “fall through the cracks”. This may be less the case at the more focused journal. I need to give their editor list a look through (maybe ask about their vacation schedule). If they have the same opt-in issue I will definitely be skipping them.
2. Traditional journals have their benefits. The high profile places I might submit all have triage systems that are very quick. I may seem odd to comment positively on a rejection mechanism, but I appreciate the efficiency. Time is valuable. The smaller more focused journals may take their time getting reviews, but I know what I’m getting. I “know” the people there and am confidence I can pick the right journal that will give my manuscripts a serious look.
3. Access seems to happen anyway. Much of my research is NIH funded and has to be put on in some form on PubMed. Also, in my area is seems pretty ubiquitous that papers are posted on lab websites. Submitting to traditional closed journals may not help the cause of Open Access, but as a practical matter my papers are pretty accessible to anyone vaguely motivated to get them.
Way back in the early days of grant preparation I went on to NIH Reporter and printed out a list of the currently funded projects for the grant type. The profile of the projects being funded was not what I expected, yet not entirely surprising. I was reminded of course of the Bishop blog post on the devaluation of low-cost research. The profile of what NIH was funding (and what they weren’t) was certainly something I kept it mind in putting my project together for the grant. The degree to which my research program, and ideas for future projects resembled funded project should be accentuated.
That brings me to job ads. Some are quite specific in what they want. Others are vague. Others somehow manage a bit of both. It is tempting to try to do a bit of tea leaves reading here. Though many ads ask for a researcher of some broad topic, it is tempting read between the lines and assume they also mean using that hot new method everyone likes, or the one that we know NIH funds a lot. My own department wrote a pretty broad job ad last year, and then brought out 4 people with very very similar research methods (and proven or potential funding). I am waiting to see an ad that merely states Fundable researcher needed. Topic flexible. (I assume the ‘open’ searches are exactly this.)
Question: How long does it take to run an experiment? Just the data collection and basic analysis, assuming you could work exclusively on this one experiment. (if willing state your field in the comments).
For me it depends on what method I’m using, Method A is weeks to months, depending on the conditions. Method B is hours, but often includes weeks to months of pre-experiment work.
Here’s how I’m procrastinating these days:
One of the local grads is having an existential crisis. I’m never going to get a job. I should never have come here. I shouldn’t have gone to grad school period. etc. etc. We’ll all been there. I attempted to cheer her up just as she hit the “no job if your advisor isn’t famous” gripe. During that exchange she took advantage of my well known weakness for
wasting spending time playing around with stats and got me to make a few graphs. Ok, so you don’t have to twist my arm for me to spend time on some analysis having nothing to do with my research. That’s how I ended up as a “statistical consultant” for a local coffee shop (they paid me in delicious sandwiches). Anywho, grad student got me to make the following:
(click to greatly embiggen)
Thats of representation of where the profs at some “top 5″ department go their doctorates. Each line is one faculty, where the left point is the rank of the department and the right point the rank of that persons graduate alma matter (rank via usnews). The red dashed line is the median faculty. So the higher the slope the more a department takes faculty from higher ranked programs.
For comparison here are three other departments
Why have we made these graphs? I have no idea. They look pretty and we wanted to actually know where the profs at a few departments had gotten their doctorates (rather than rely on rumor and reputations).
Before I started posting here I’d been reading the science/academia internets for a few years. At some point while talking with another black science grad about her frustrations she asked me “so there are a few black science bloggers, right?” I drew a blank. Plenty people are pseudo-anon so who knows, but I couldn’t think of anyone visible. So I started1.
1. Since then I have found a few other science folks.