Earth and related Environmental SciencesWordPress.com

Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

SV-POW! ... All sauropod vertebrae, except when we're talking about Open Access. ISSN 3033-3695
Home PageAtom FeedISSN 3033-3695
language
Published

In the first of two disapointing scholarly-communication announcements last week, Jisc announced its report on progress towards open access in the UK. The key finding is: But that’s not the part that disappoints me. Here’s the part that disappoints me: Sometimes I think people don’t know what “transitional” means.

Published

Prompted by a post on Mastodon (which, like all Mastodon posts, I can no longer find), I asked ChatGPT to tell me about my own papers. The response started out well but quickly got much worse. I will indent my comments on its response. Q. What are some articles written by Michael P. Taylor? A. Michael P. Taylor is a vertebrate paleontologist and open science advocate.

Published

I was a bit shaken to read this short article, Submit It Again! Learning From Rejected Manuscripts (Campbell et al. 2022), recently posted on Mastodon by open-access legend Peter Suber. For example: Let’s pick this apart a bit. “Because they recently published a similar article” ? What is this nonsense.

Published

I’m sure you’ve seen things like ChatGPT in the news: programs that can carry out pretty convincing conversations. They are known as Large Language Models (LLMs) and are frequently referred to as being Artificial Intelligence (AI) — but I really don’t like that designation as it implies some understanding.

Published
Author Matt Wedel

“And in conclusion, this new fossil/analysis shows that Lineageomorpha was more [here fill in the blank]: diverse morphologically varied widely distributed geographically widely distributed stratigraphically …than previously appreciated.“  Yes, congratulations, you’ve correctly identified that time moves forward linearly and that information accumulates.

Published

In the last post, I catalogued some of the reasons why Scientific Reports , in its cargo-cult attempts to ape print journals such as its stablemate Nature , is an objectively bad journal that removes value from the papers submitted to it: the unnatural shortening that relagates important material into supplementary information, the downplaying of methods, the tiny figures that ram unrelated illustrations into compound images, the

Published
Author Matt Wedel

{.size-large .wp-image-14898 .aligncenter loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“14898” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2018/11/04/diverticulum-diverticula/walter_sobchak/” orig-file=“https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/walter_sobchak.jpg” orig-size=“1008,468” comments-opened=“1”

Published

It’s common to come across abstracts like this one, from an interesting paper on how a paper’s revision history influences how often it gets cited (Rigby, Cox and Julian 2018): This tells us that a larger number of revisions leads to (or at least is correlated with) an increased citation-count. Interesting! Immediately, I have two questions, and I bet you do, too: 1. What is the size of the effect?