The science thread!

kirby101
The Power Cosmic!

Posts: 6,262

The science thread! Apr 28, 2024 11:49:25 GMT -5 Roquefort Raider likes this

Quote

Post by kirby101 on Apr 28, 2024 11:49:25 GMT -5

Apr 28, 2024 9:20:34 GMT -5 @kal said:

Apr 28, 2024 8:37:07 GMT -5 kirby101 said:

I think he is only differentiating between Science as a method for finding answers and other ways, like religion that require faith.
What he says is accurate. Science does not require belief for it's conclusions.
I don't know any scientist not open to new evidence in something that is accepted to be true. This is another way Science differs from Religion.
It's why statements about things like "believing in evolution" are ridiculous. Evolution does not require belief.

I understand the spirit of what you are saying, I also think that statement bears some scrutiny. How many people accept scientific conclusions on a regular basis without really understanding the basis for it? I would actually say on a broad scale, science in practice does require some degree of belief in a sense. There was a time in human history when it was established science that the universe rotated around the Earth.

Now, do we have a considerable body of evidence of support for say your example of evolution, consumable at least to some degree by the reasonably educated layperson? I would generally argue yes, but let's sound out a little further. My field of studies is more physics versus biology. There are some nuances of evolution unresolved in my mind I've pondered at times out of intellectual curiosity, and I know with deeper study I could likely better understand how science might address those questions. It doesn't mean I refute evolution in the meantime, but it does mean I have to rely more on a "belief" the evolutionary biologists know what they are talking about versus the level of evidence I understand on say certain particle physics topics.

I won't get into the religion discussion directly, that's not my purpose for these comments. I'm simply commenting on what it means to have "scientific knowledge", and as someone who again finds great joy in the pursuit of scientific insights, I think it's important to also recognize on what level we actually obtain that knowledge.

This is something I've seen physicist and well-known educator Sean Carroll address at times, and while he creates educational works designed to be consumed at the layperson level, he has also pointed out that without some of the mathematics that goes with certain deeper scientific concepts there are barriers to truly appreciating the full meaning and "beauty" of what they ultimately mean. I've seen him try to bridge some of that by creating simplified mathematics that don't require the same rigorous academic experience of a college physics major, but allows deeper insight than a fully non-mathematical treatment.

Again, my passion is around science and what it means to acquire scientific knowledge (in the epistemological sense if you will), so my comments are just in that context.

A few things, what people thought before the modern Scientific method was established the last few hundred years was not Science. The nature of the Universe in ancient times was not Science. The Science NGT talks about is a recent development. (yes, with some exceptions down the years)

And people accepting what scientists say is not Science. Science is what scientists do using the scientific method. They require no faith or belief in their conclusions. And anybody can look at the evidence and study it to see how the results work. Yes, once you understand how Science functions, you can accept their conclusions without having to go over every study, but you can if you wish, and you need no belief to see for yourself. I think the other way Science differs is scientist know they can always be wrong, and part of their studies or experiments is trying to prove they are wrong.

As for evolution. Saying we haven't achieved an understanding of every nuisance of evolution doesn't make it any less of a fact. It was an established fact before DNA was deciphered and more of an established fact after.

Last Edit: Apr 28, 2024 11:53:42 GMT -5 by kirby101

"For want of a better name!"

kirby101
The Power Cosmic!

Posts: 6,262

The science thread! Apr 28, 2024 15:22:10 GMT -5 Roquefort Raider, berkley, and 1 more like this

Quote

Post by kirby101 on Apr 28, 2024 15:22:10 GMT -5

Apr 28, 2024 15:20:01 GMT -5 @kal said:

kirby101 - Also, thank you for the friendly debate on this topic, I know we both have counterpoints but it's always a nice stretch for the brain to consider a topic like this.

I see where you are coming from. I think rather than disagreeing, we are looking at different aspects of this subject.

"For want of a better name!"

Doghouse Reilly
Full Member

Rush headlong into any dare

Posts: 167

The science thread! Apr 30, 2024 7:48:08 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Doghouse Reilly on Apr 30, 2024 7:48:08 GMT -5

Apr 28, 2024 9:20:34 GMT -5 @kal said:

Apr 28, 2024 8:37:07 GMT -5 kirby101 said:

I think he is only differentiating between Science as a method for finding answers and other ways, like religion that require faith.
What he says is accurate. Science does not require belief for it's conclusions.
I don't know any scientist not open to new evidence in something that is accepted to be true. This is another way Science differs from Religion.
It's why statements about things like "believing in evolution" are ridiculous. Evolution does not require belief.

I understand the spirit of what you are saying, I also think that statement bears some scrutiny. How many people accept scientific conclusions on a regular basis without really understanding the basis for it? I would actually say on a broad scale, science in practice does require some degree of belief in a sense. There was a time in human history when it was established science that the universe rotated around the Earth.

You're conflating non-scientists' perception of the state of scientific knowledge with the actual practice of science.

I doubt that when you say "it was established science that the universe rotated around the Earth" that you have in mind people saying that "my current best model of the universe is that the universe rotates around the earth, and this model has held up to attempts to disprove it". You're comparing assumptions to scientific theories, and then saying that because non-scientific assumptions have been wrong, then science sometimes requires belief.

In a few hundred years in the future, people may say our current body of work is not science either. That may not feel remotely intuitive to us today due to our strong confidence in what we think we know, it's just a caution that there could be profound advancements in the future that make our current understandings seem rather primitive.

You're flirting with solipsism, which always happens when someone tries to diminish the awsomeness of the scientific method. Sure, *anything* at all is technically possible, but when you consider all possibilities have equal weight, no matter how absurd, then nothing at all has any meaning.

Last Edit: Apr 30, 2024 9:23:36 GMT -5 by Roquefort Raider

Are we miscast, or do we hold fast?

Doghouse Reilly
Full Member

Rush headlong into any dare

Posts: 167

The science thread! Apr 30, 2024 8:37:17 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Doghouse Reilly on Apr 30, 2024 8:37:17 GMT -5

I have a question for our resident scientist(s) (Roquefort Raider and whoever else):

I studied biology in college (didn't quite finish my B.A., for reasons I won't get into), and although I never worked in a scientific field, I think I grokked everything pretty well, and held onto a lot of knowledge over the past decades. In the context of lay folk confusing the technical meaning of "theory" with its common usage (which in technical terms would map much better to "hypothesis"), I often hear non-scientists talking about how theories get discarded all the time. This is wrong, of course. Due to the rigorous testing involved before naming something a theory, any further evidence which comes along which might upset a theory in some way, always ends up with the "old", "upset" theory as a special case of the new one. Is this correct? Is there any example of a theory which was completely scrapped? If so, what would be the most prominent example?

Are we miscast, or do we hold fast?

Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad

Modus omnibus in rebus

Posts: 17,401

The science thread! Apr 30, 2024 9:51:33 GMT -5 driver1980 and Doghouse Reilly like this

Quote

Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 30, 2024 9:51:33 GMT -5

Apr 30, 2024 8:37:17 GMT -5 Doghouse Reilly said:

I have a question for our resident scientist(s) (Roquefort Raider and whoever else):

I studied biology in college (didn't quite finish my B.A., for reasons I won't get into), and although I never worked in a scientific field, I think I grokked everything pretty well, and held onto a lot of knowledge over the past decades. In the context of lay folk confusing the technical meaning of "theory" with its common usage (which in technical terms would map much better to "hypothesis"), I often hear non-scientists talking about how theories get discarded all the time. This is wrong, of course. Due to the rigorous testing involved before naming something a theory, any further evidence which comes along which might upset a theory in some way, always ends up with the "old", "upset" theory as a special case of the new one. Is this correct? Is there any example of a theory which was completely scrapped? If so, what would be the most prominent example?

It's very rare for a scientific theory to be scrapped (at least a well-established one); as new data comes in, it is usually just refined. When a major body of work is confined to the dustbin of history, it is most often referred to as a model (like geocentrism) or a mechanism (like Darwin's pangenesis).

Certain theories can run concurrently to others and be incompatible, suggesting that we could eventually dump one in favour of the other; string theory, for example, is appealing because of its explanatory power but suffers from a serious lack of hard data. It could one day be dropped entirely (or show itself to be pretty accurate, I don't know).

The whole thing is really about semantics. Even practicing scientists use the word "theory" in daily parlance as equivalent to "an idea". In a sense, a theory is a bit like a species: while we know what we're talking about when mentioning one, we don't have clear lines to tell us when we go from a well-tested hypothesis to a full-fledged theory. That's why certain models, certain ideas, will be called by different names -including "theory"- depending on one's source.

A rather waffly response, I'm afraid!

Last Edit: Jun 24, 2024 10:36:12 GMT -5 by Roquefort Raider

_________________________________
People in white coats is where I put my humorous science cartoons.
Roquefort Raider is where you can see some of my more serious stuff. Feel welcome to drop by!
Éditions Roquefort is my publishing house.

driver1980
Friendly Neighborhood Regular

Posts: 3,205

The science thread! Apr 30, 2024 9:58:06 GMT -5 Roquefort Raider likes this

Quote

Post by driver1980 on Apr 30, 2024 9:58:06 GMT -5

The fascinating responses here have got me thinking: Is there anything that we can definitively state WILL NEVER occur because it’d be scientifically impossible? (Asking a question here of knowledgable people, not expressing a view)

For instance, when we were discussing things in the ChatGPT thread, I asked the AI if a supersonic helicopter will ever be possible, with rotor blades capable of withstanding supersonic speeds. The answer, and I even looked on Quora, seemed to be a definitive “NO”.

That’s my personal example, other examples could include faster-than-light travel, time travel, etc.

For anyone with a scientific head here, going by my example, can we completely rule out a supersonic helicopter for all eternity, or could it be within the realms of reality, if a little improbable?

Like I said, I’m seeking knowledge, not expressing a view. I can’t remember where I read it, but I remember reading an article - Reader’s Digest, possibly? - which stated that it was once believed a heavier-than-air flying machine would be impossible, but now we have all sorts of flying machines. So I’d be curious as to whether my example of a supersonic helicopter could ever be ruled out.

Last Edit: Apr 30, 2024 10:00:06 GMT -5 by driver1980

Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad

Modus omnibus in rebus

Posts: 17,401

The science thread! Apr 30, 2024 10:17:27 GMT -5 Prince Hal and driver1980 like this

Quote

Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 30, 2024 10:17:27 GMT -5

Apr 30, 2024 9:58:06 GMT -5 driver1980 said:

The fascinating responses here have got me thinking: Is there anything that we can definitively state WILL NEVER occur because it’d be scientifically impossible? (Asking a question here of knowledgable people, not expressing a view)

For instance, when we were discussing things in the ChatGPT thread, I asked the AI if a supersonic helicopter will ever be possible, with rotor blades capable of withstanding supersonic speeds. The answer, and I even looked on Quora, seemed to be a definitive “NO”.

That’s my personal example, other examples could include faster-than-light travel, time travel, etc.

For anyone with a scientific head here, going by my example, can we completely rule out a supersonic helicopter for all eternity, or could it be within the realms of reality, if a little improbable?

Like I said, I’m seeking knowledge, not expressing a view. I can’t remember where I read it, but I remember reading an article - Reader’s Digest, possibly? - which stated that it was once believed a heavier-than-air flying machine would be impossible, but now we have all sorts of flying machines. So I’d be curious as to whether my example of a supersonic helicopter could ever be ruled out.

I don't think it can be absolutely ruled out, because the concept doesn't contradict fundamental laws of nature; we'd just need a machine sturdy enough, with sufficient thrust. The practical problems I see is that there might be no material capable of handling the stresses involved, or that the modifications required to gain enough thrust would change the thing from a helicopter into something else. So rather than completely impossible, I would say that it is not practical at this time. However, I wouldn't say that it's as impossible as, say, cooling one's kitchen by leaving the door of the fridge open all night.

_________________________________
People in white coats is where I put my humorous science cartoons.
Roquefort Raider is where you can see some of my more serious stuff. Feel welcome to drop by!
Éditions Roquefort is my publishing house.

Doghouse Reilly
Full Member

Rush headlong into any dare

Posts: 167

The science thread! Apr 30, 2024 10:39:10 GMT -5 Roquefort Raider and driver1980 like this

Quote

Post by Doghouse Reilly on Apr 30, 2024 10:39:10 GMT -5

Apr 30, 2024 9:58:06 GMT -5 driver1980 said:

The fascinating responses here have got me thinking: Is there anything that we can definitively state WILL NEVER occur because it’d be scientifically impossible? (Asking a question here of knowledgable people, not expressing a view)

Saying that something is scientifically impossible would mean the speaker is mistaking his model for reality. I don't think it's responsible to ever say something is impossible. You can, however, say that you have a rigorously tested model which does not allow for such-and-such. But I again want to be careful with elevating solipsism anywhere near to the utility and success of the scientific method. I see so many people infer that "we can't really know anything" when the honesty of the scientific method is laid out for them.

Are we miscast, or do we hold fast?

Roquefort Raider CCF Mod Squad Modus omnibus in rebus Posts: 17,401	The science thread! May 20, 2024 10:01:24 GMT -5 EdoBosnar likes this Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Back to Top Post by Roquefort Raider on May 20, 2024 10:01:24 GMT -5 The spooky sound of a black hole (sped up):
	_________________________________ People in white coats is where I put my humorous science cartoons. Roquefort Raider is where you can see some of my more serious stuff. Feel welcome to drop by! Éditions Roquefort is my publishing house.

EdoBosnar
The Power Cosmic!

Posts: 9,020
Member is Online

The science thread! May 20, 2024 10:30:24 GMT -5 Roquefort Raider likes this

Quote

Post by EdoBosnar on May 20, 2024 10:30:24 GMT -5

May 20, 2024 10:01:24 GMT -5 Roquefort Raider said:

The spooky sound of a black hole (sped up):

(...)

Cool and, obviously, kind of spooky and disturbing.

A number of years ago, I went down a YouTube rabbit hole clicking on similar videos featuring the 'sounds' emitted by the sun and then all of the planets in our solar system. The sun, and to some extent, Jupiter are almost soothing, while Saturn - not unlike that black hole - is a friggin' horror movie soundtrack.

Here's a video that has brief samples of them all:

driver1980 Friendly Neighborhood Regular Posts: 3,205	The science thread! Jun 24, 2024 7:43:49 GMT -5 Roquefort Raider likes this Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Back to Top Post by driver1980 on Jun 24, 2024 7:43:49 GMT -5 Entire universe in one image (by Pablo Carlos Budassi via Twitter): x.com/MAstronomers/status/1805093492076814359

Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad

Modus omnibus in rebus

Posts: 17,401

The science thread! Jul 17, 2024 8:29:42 GMT -5 Confessor and Doghouse Reilly like this

Quote

Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 17, 2024 8:29:42 GMT -5

One way the scientific community controls the quality of research work is by relying on peer review. New discoveries and their analysis are submitted to scientific journals in the form of articles, which are critically read by experts in the field; experts whose job it is to reject the paper if at all possible (success rate is pretty low, especially on a first try).

This system is not perfect, but has proven to be very worthwhile. It is much, much harder to disseminate nonsense in a respectable journal like Cell than it is on Facebook. That's why scientific journals are assigned an impact factor, a measure of how often what it publishes is referred to in other works (an indirect measure of how actually useful it is).

However, everyone is aware of the system's limitations. The first and most benign is that nobody is perfect, even reviewers, and that bad science can still go through the peer review sieve. It's not that worrying because it quickly becomes clear that an experiment can't be reproduced, even if at first it was thought to be well done, well controlled and well interpreted.

A bigger problem is that a scientist's career hangs on being able to publish articles. That means that there is a market for publishing low-level science, or even total b######t. So-called predatory journals will print whatever you send them, and their contributing authors may include scientists desperate to boost their publication list or crooks trying to say their Authentic Cancer-Curing Atlantis Crystals have been scientifically proven to work.

From time to time, a few people have fun showing that the emperor has no clothes. This morning I learned of a neat example: entomologist Matan Shelomi, from Taiwan, published a paper on how Covid-19 was caused by... the consumption of Zubats, the bat-shaped Pokemon. It was published in the serious-sounding "American Journal of Biomedical Science & Research".

Not only is the title a dead giveaway, but even the address provided by the author should have triggered an alarm in any reviewer: Gotham General Hospital, Wooster, NZ 90210, USA.

The paper's bogus references list is a joy to behold. Note the multiple references to Pokemon and to predatory journals, as well as to Batman, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Harry Potter, Xi Jingpin loking like Winnie the Pooh and more!

Joy NC, Joy NS, Joy NM (2007) Signs and symptoms of Pokérus infection. The Lancet 54: 3-45.

Shelomi M (2019) Entomoludology: Arthropods in video games. American Entomologist 65(2): 97-106.

Jesse J James J (2020) Prepare for trouble: Coronavirus outbreak reaches North America. Rocket Science Monthly 21(2): 45-47.

Bowman JD (2014) Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 78(10): 176.

Joy MP, Joy DD, Joy TP (2006) Rabies outbreak in Pokémon daycare center. Infectious Diseases 33: 377-378.

Joy CV, Joy L, Joy R (2013) Nidoran envenomation and associated viruses. Surgery Journal of Unova 23: 5-9.

Seadle M (2018) Publication quality, peer review and predatory journals. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 55(1): 730-731.

Jesse J James J (2020) Make it double: Coronavirus outbreak reaches Antarctica. Rocket Science Monthly 21(3): 32-37.

Mazzetti D (2016) Fraud in exercise science journals: Do you even peer review? Archives of Broscience 112(7): 896-902.

Wayne B (2016) Phobia of Bats and Its Applications in Criminal Justice. Gotham Forensics Quarterly 26(8): 807-814.

Crichton M (2013) Origin and Defeat of the Andromeda Strain. Journal of Cryptovirology 116(6): 1360-1363.

Beall J (2016) Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. Journal of Korean Medical Science 31(10): 1511-1513.

Johal J, Ward R, Gielecki J, Jerzy Walocha, Kostantinos Natsis, et al. (2017) Beware of the predatory science journal: A potential threat to the integrity of medical research. Clinical Anatomy 30(6): 767-773.

Masic I (2017) Predatory publishing–experience with OMICS International. Medical Archives 71(5): 304-307.

Strielkowski W (2017) Predatory journals: Beall's List is missed. Nature 544(7651): 416.

Yarbs S, Syme S, Rubin B, Moungher W, Stamper M, et al. (2020) Laughter is ineffective medicine against COVID-19. Taiwan Journal of Anesthesiology 2: 1-15.

Jesse J, James J (2020) Meowth, that’s right: Coronavirus detected in cats. Rocket Science Monthly 21(4): 66.

Joy SM (2006) Pangolins do not cure cancer any other diseases. Journal of Please Stop Eating Endangered Species 21: 420-430.

Zhivago Y (1965) Love caught in the fire revolution. MGM Studios 12: 193.

Ketchum A, Oak S (2020) The importance of handwashing in Aipoms. Training Today 3: 14.

Shelomi M, Richards A, Li I, Okido Y (2012) A phylogeny and evolutionary history of the Pokémon. Annals of Improbable Research 18(4): 15-17.

Potter H, Weasley R, Granger H (2013) Novel rhinovirus responsible for newt eye infection. Magical Creatures 6: 31-36.

Dickson T (2006) Will it blend with a p-value below 0.5? Nature 420: 32-35.

Schmidt-Jeffris R, Nelson J (2018) Gotta catch ’em all! Communicating entomology with Pokémon. American Entomologist 64(3): 159-164.

Winnfield J, Vega V (1994) What do they call a predatory journal in France? Pulp Nonfiction 521: 154.

Applebaum E, Schlangemann H, Schlomi M (2019) Anthocyanin Receptor Expressions Across Tangela (Monjara tangela) Vines. Journal of Plant Biochemistry & Physiology 7: 1000237.

Un KJ, Stalin J, Pot P, Hoxha E (1984) Comparative methods of involuntary movement restriction as applied in Wuhan and Xinjiang. Journal of Dictatorial Behaviour 32(1): 172-181.

Stromberg J (2014) ‘Get Me Off Your F*****g Mailing List’ is an Actual Science Paper Accepted by a Journal. Vox 21: 10-11.

Pooh W, Milne AA (2019) Similarities between politicians and fictional bears, part xi. Hong Kong Journal of Democracy 5: 50-55.

Berenstain B (2004) Masks do not prevent the spread of viral particles in Cubchoo sneezes. Revista Não Revisada por Pares 76(2): 289-295.

Laine C, Winker MA (2017) Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochemia medica: Biochemia Medica 27(2): 285-291.

Finger B, Kane B, Robinson J (1965) Case study of depression in a comedian with pseudobulbar affect. DC Medical Journal 77(1): 5-37.

da Vinci L, Simoni MdLB, da Urbino MS, Bardi DdNdB (2014) Effects of exposure to sewage on martial arts skills in turtles. Journal of Cowabungan Zoology 479(2): 149-155.

Orwell G (1984) Why arresting doctors for discovering a new virus is a terrible idea. Annals of the Zhēnxiàngbù 112(2): 748-759.

Vakil C (2019) Predatory journals: Authors and readers beware. Can Fam Physician 65(2): 92-94.

Beall J (2016) Essential information about predatory publishers and journals. International Higher Education 86: 2-3.

Pinky M, Brain M (2005) Hantavirus transmission in aerosolized Rattata feces. Royal Society of Cryptobiology 420: 32-34.

Wright P, Fey M, Justice A (2007) A guide to legal defense. South Harmon Review of Law 3: 46-53.

Edgeworth M, von Karma F, von Karma M (2007) A guide to legal prosecution. South Harmon Review of Law 31: 343-354.

Counihan J (1986) Effects on perceived hotness of chili when cooked over Charmander flames. Suisun Journal of Burnination 1:10

Squarepants, S Star P, Cheeks S (2014) Treatment of Karenovirus infection with processed food. Bikini Bottom Journal of Morbidity and Mortality 32: 2-50.

Joy NY, Joy CA, Joy NZ, Joy MO, Joy FK, et al. (2019) The importance of peer review in medical journals. Journal of Nursing Ethics 12: 73-86.
--------------------

Remember: this article on Pokemon causing Covid was accepted by a supposedly "scientific" journal!

That's why I always roll my eyes when people try to argue that a journal's impact factor isn't as relevant as it used to be. In an era of disinformation, it strikes me as more important than ever.

Note the Stromberg paper: as stated, it is an actual article published in another predatory journal. It consist entirely of the phrase "get me off your f******g mailing list", repeated over and over. And it was accepted.

Much, much respect for Dr. Shelomi and his whimsical experiment, and to all those who work hard to fight bogus science!

edit, because this is too good: I kid you not, the second I pressed "send", I received an e-mail from a predatory journal asking me to contribute a paper!!! This is straight out of a comedy film!

Last Edit: Jul 17, 2024 9:48:13 GMT -5 by Roquefort Raider

_________________________________
People in white coats is where I put my humorous science cartoons.
Roquefort Raider is where you can see some of my more serious stuff. Feel welcome to drop by!
Éditions Roquefort is my publishing house.

EdoBosnar
The Power Cosmic!

Posts: 9,020
Member is Online

The science thread! Jul 17, 2024 10:03:03 GMT -5

Quote

Post by EdoBosnar on Jul 17, 2024 10:03:03 GMT -5

Jul 17, 2024 8:29:42 GMT -5 Roquefort Raider said:

(...)

Squarepants, S Star P, Cheeks S (2014) Treatment of Karenovirus infection with processed food. Bikini Bottom Journal of Morbidity and Mortality 32: 2-50.

(...)

Yeah, this one in particular is a real red flag and kind of gives the game away; since the ground-breaking study conducted by J. Hibbert et al. in 2011 it's been pretty well known that processed food exacerbates Karenovirus symptoms. It's a pity, too, because the lead author has done some cutting-edge, indeed seminal, research in the causes and treatment of squid neuroses. However, he has no qualifications in viral pathology.

Last Edit: Jul 17, 2024 10:05:16 GMT -5 by EdoBosnar

Roquefort Raider CCF Mod Squad Modus omnibus in rebus Posts: 17,401	The science thread! Jul 17, 2024 10:38:54 GMT -5 Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Back to Top Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 17, 2024 10:38:54 GMT -5 I find it satisfying that Kane was not first author on this one : Finger B, Kane B, Robinson J (1965) Case study of depression in a comedian with pseudobulbar affect. DC Medical Journal 77(1): 5-37.
	Last Edit: Jul 17, 2024 10:39:06 GMT -5 by Roquefort Raider _________________________________ People in white coats is where I put my humorous science cartoons. Roquefort Raider is where you can see some of my more serious stuff. Feel welcome to drop by! Éditions Roquefort is my publishing house.

Rob Allen
The Power Cosmic!

Posts: 9,654

The science thread! Jul 17, 2024 10:56:52 GMT -5 Roquefort Raider likes this

Quote

Post by Rob Allen on Jul 17, 2024 10:56:52 GMT -5

Someone in my neck of the woods has started a new academic journal. It's a little different from the standard model but seems to be a serious, non-predatory publication. I'm not in academia and would love to hear from people more familiar with academic publishing. Is this a good idea?

"New journal founded by Oregon scientist offers alternative to traditional academic publishing

July 15, 2024

Earlier this month, a new journal based in Portland launched online with its first set of published scientific articles. But the Stacks Journal isn’t your typical academic journal, according to its founder, David Green, an ecologist who previously worked at OSU’s Institute for Natural Resources. He says that it removes some of the main obstacles associated with traditional academic publishing by being more affordable and available to anyone online. And it offers an alternative to the traditional model of peer review by having reviewers work together to provide feedback on a scientific paper and vote on whether it should be published. The process can be completed in just a few weeks compared to a year or more for an article to be published in a traditional journal.

Green joins us to share more, along with Phoebe Parker-Shames, a wildlife ecologist at The Presidio Trust in San Francisco who recently authored a study published in Stacks Journal about the impact of cannabis cultivation on wildlife in southern Oregon."

Audio: pds.cdnstream1.com/p/opb/think-out-loud/new-journal-founded-by-o-b638fb/audio.mp3?aw_0_1st.playerid=opbsite

Website: www.opb.org/article/2024/07/15/think-out-loud-science-peer-review-research-stacks-journal/

--
Rob Allen

This signature conforms to the original standard for signatures on Usenet.

Post by kirby101 on Apr 28, 2024 11:49:25 GMT -5

Post by kirby101 on Apr 28, 2024 15:22:10 GMT -5

Post by Doghouse Reilly on Apr 30, 2024 7:48:08 GMT -5

Post by Doghouse Reilly on Apr 30, 2024 8:37:17 GMT -5

Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 30, 2024 9:51:33 GMT -5

Post by driver1980 on Apr 30, 2024 9:58:06 GMT -5

Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 30, 2024 10:17:27 GMT -5

Post by Doghouse Reilly on Apr 30, 2024 10:39:10 GMT -5

Post by Roquefort Raider on May 20, 2024 10:01:24 GMT -5

Post by EdoBosnar on May 20, 2024 10:30:24 GMT -5

Post by driver1980 on Jun 24, 2024 7:43:49 GMT -5

Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 17, 2024 8:29:42 GMT -5

Post by EdoBosnar on Jul 17, 2024 10:03:03 GMT -5

Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 17, 2024 10:38:54 GMT -5

Post by Rob Allen on Jul 17, 2024 10:56:52 GMT -5

The science thread!