Academic Déjà vu, or Academic Dementia?
I get a lot of academic spam However, the missive that arrived yesterday looked like the real deal, then made me question my sanity.
I get a lot of academic spam However, the missive that arrived yesterday looked like the real deal, then made me question my sanity.
There are so many systems that are supposed to document our outputs, talking to each other all the time.
I lead a very sheltered life: before reading this post, I had never suspected that it is possible to hijack an academic journal.
This article on the Duck by Dan Nexon, about rather unfortunate consequences of the publish/perish incentives,makes some very good points
This, from 2021, is still interesting
Sometimes, reviewer 3 turns out to be reviewer 2. But at least it’s unintentionally funny.
Because there is a pandemic, we are improving the home. Because I’ve spent a year in the so-called office (i.e. the box room), the box room office is in particular need of improvement. Because it’s my box room office, it needs an especially good clean-out before there is any possibility of improvement. That’s why I’m…
Here is a new (for me) reason why the peer review process is flawed. Contains a cool simulation
Brexit is depressing, but the the #LiteraryBrexit tag on twitter is hilariousThere are scientists who use the scientific method to study how science journals work. And their work is actually relevant.Interesting, yet depressing reading: a fact-file on right-wing terrorism in GermanyToday’s AI is not intelligent. Thought so
Received September 5, online first June 5, and at least six more months until the piece is assigned to an issue and is paginated. A neat illustration of (some of) the problems with the current system. And no, I don’t have an easy solution.