
Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tlug] Open Access Journals
- Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:18:10 +0900
- From: Darren Cook <darren@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [tlug] Open Access Journals
- References: <53292BF2.6030309@dcook.org> <CAAhy3dsA3yJ+dhP8y5AnkDm0Rhepfe6TyxXwENkiWtrqtqAgYQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140322100123.920638c262ed2e35be0ecc2d@kinali.ch> <87zjkggv3n.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20140326092128.ce15a21d03bfafbbcfd660d5@kinali.ch> <87wqfgown8.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87ppl7ou5g.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20140330123127.db17cd41959005fa6002d3c6@kinali.ch> <8761mvoe5x.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <CAAhy3ds-Tfno8KrsexFnB3CracrTYUpM962HD4jETsVaVAKxhA@mail.gmail.com> <8738hznmc9.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <CAAhy3dv+rG14dht0naZCdnoR=ADGgEStOCxd8awa+AmtCwB=qw@mail.gmail.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130330 Thunderbird/17.0.5
The following reminded me of the discussion here, about paper quality
and the quality of peer review:
http://stats.stackexchange.com/q/92213/5503
I remember commenting to the author of a computer science paper that his
stats was so much more solid than most papers in this field. His reply:
"Ah, that's because I'm a physicist" :-)
> Now, it's almost reached a point in bioinformatics where we don't know
> what we're looking for...so let's throw it into a piece of software
> (i.e., a machine learning algorithm for example) -- it tells us which
> genes out of the thousands that were examined are interesting in a
> statistically significant way, and then we write a paper about it.
There does seem to be a paradigm shift in the way science is done.
Darren
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index