Comments for Plausible Accuracy

Comment on Shameless and unsolicited plug for BioMedCentral by PA

PA — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:22:24 +0000

It’s unclear in my post, but where I say “They didn’t seem to be against remote employment”, this is from a personal response I got to just such an inquiry.

Comment on Shameless and unsolicited plug for BioMedCentral by bill

bill — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:25:20 +0000

It’s my impression that BMC kinda pride themselves on being flexible and adaptable. If you’re interested in one/some of the positions, why not email an informal inquiry about the possibility of telecommuting? I see no reason why an editor can’t work remotely, with perhaps one trip per year for meatspace catching-up.

Comment on Using Python to parse XML is easier than it should be by zack

zack — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:34:12 +0000

ElementTree is pretty hot stuff. If you really want to be impressed with a Python module that can handle almost anything you throw at it, have a look at Mark Pilgrim’s fabulous Universal Feedparser. http://feedparser.org/

If you are doing any work with RSS/Atom/etc. this is a life saver.

Comment on 100th post retrospective by bill

bill — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:53:00 +0000

I look forward to more of your thoughts on “deliverables”. Though I never tire of cheering from the sidelines, I too would like to do more. My current plan is to claw my way up the foodchain to a PI position at any school or institution that will have me on my own (Open) terms, since I think what “the movement” needs most is exemplars (in the “typical specimen” sense). Also, well, research = more addictive than crack, and I’m a junkie. But I have to be realistic about my chances, so I’m always looking for other ways to contribute.

BTW, have you had a look around FriendFeed? Start with the Life Scientists room, the conversation there is really excellent. (http://friendfeed.com/rooms/the-life-scientists)

Comment on PA, the “dashingly handsome” scientist by PA

PA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:59:54 +0000

The idea is to plant the seed in people’s minds. Perhaps if enough references are made to the “stunningly good looking” PA, it will become so by nature of repetition.

One can dream…

Comment on PA, the “dashingly handsome” scientist by McDawg

McDawg — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:39:33 +0000

Should this not be “the allegedly dashingly handsome Open Access blogger, PA” since your readers don’t know your identity or what you look like??

For all we know, you could look like a complete dork =)

Comment on PA, the “dashingly handsome” scientist by Sparky Clarkson

Sparky Clarkson — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:43:28 +0000

Someday, I too hope to have a mandatory adjective… I’m shooting for “acerbic”.

Comment on Is apathy the main barrier to Open Access? by McDawg

McDawg — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:52:33 +0000

Not new but a handy resource:-

(Mis)Leading Open Access Myths

http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/inquiry/myths/

Comment on Is apathy the main barrier to Open Access? by Nathaniel Blair

Nathaniel Blair — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:03:58 +0000

I don’t think it’s apathy. I think most scientists (speaking of ones I know, mostly postdocs and graduate students) see going the OA route as too risky in publishing their work at this point. That’s because there’s no consensus that any of the particular OA journals out there carry the same imputed value as the C/N/S, etc. journals that everyone is shooting for.

So while they may realize the advantages of OA (in the abstract to be sure) they aren’t willing to pass up the chance to publish in more widely regarded venues. Instead, they might think of the current OA journals out there are decent ‘triage’ sites, but not their first choice.

The more I think of this, the more I wonder if it’s related to the tyranny of the impact factor. Assuming that OA journals do in fact increase citation numbers, then essentially people prefer to have fewer citations to their paper in a higher impact journal.

I’m still hopeful that over time, it will become more and more obvious that the OA route is the way to go. But I take that as a matter of faith, not as a certain likelihood.

Comment on Is apathy the main barrier to Open Access? by Stevan Harnad

Stevan Harnad — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:13:36 +0000

The syndrome is not apathy but Zeno’s Paralysis:

Harnad, S. (2006) Opening Access by Overcoming Zeno’s Paralysis, in Jacobs, N., Eds. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects, chapter 8. Chandos.
http://openaccess.eprints.org/

The cure is Green Open Access Self-Archiving Mandates by researchers’ institutions and funders:

http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/