h a l f b a k e r ySuperficial Intelligence
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
In scientific research, research groups spend a
considerable
amount of time actually reading papers of other
researchers, and then sharing the on-line findings with
members of their research groups, by preparing
presentations of their-found publications.
However, making a presentation requires
reading and
understanding that paper thoroughly (even if the paper is
far from your own area of focus), which has to take
more
time than it would for the original author of the paper
who
already know all the details.
So, the idea would be a requirement that scientific
journals would include in their sets of paper submission
requirements: include a publishable video presentation
of
your paper.
Scientific journals could give access to such presentations
for a fee, small enough that ordinary research group
would
choose to buy presentation rather than re-make it
by
themselves.
Why only papers?
http://www.google.c...+2011&hl=en&tbm=vid
[mouseposture, Oct 23 2011]
[link]
|
| |
//requires reading and understanding that paper
thoroughly// Well, but, that's the point, innit? Or if
you want someone to do it for you, and present a
simplified version, why is an oral presentation better
than a written one? |
|
| |
You're referring to journal clubs, I think, where a
group of people get together and discuss a paper.
They're good, because people actually have to
read and understand the paper to get involved in
the discussion. That is the point. |
|
| |
It's great to make papers more accessible to non-
professionals and to people from other fields, and
a well-written paper in any field should allow
anyone to understand something (even if it's only
the abstract). |
|
| |
It would also be great if all publicly-funded
research papers were available to the public
(which includes any researcher when he's at home
or looking into a different field). |
|
| |
However, it's not the job of researchers to stand
around making videos - they have (or should have)
better things to do with your tax dollar. One of
those things is reading other researcher's papers
to get the details which no sane person would put
in a video. Another one is actually doing research. |
|
| |
Also, researchers as a whole are getting
increasingly pissed off at the entire "requirement"
theme. One day we'll get ourselves organised and
invent a new plague specially for requirers. |
|
| |
Why not a union? They work for all the other malcontents. |
|
| |
> it's not the job of researchers to stand around making
videos - they have (or should have) better things to do with
your tax dollar. |
|
| |
So, if we follow that line of thinking, writing papers in
LaTeX is also not (or should not be) a researcher's job, is
that right? |
|
| |
//writing papers in LaTeX is also not (or should
not be) a researcher's job, is that right?// |
|
| |
Well, yes, that's right. None of the journals
specifies LaTeX (at least not that I know of -
perhaps in other fields than the one I work in). |
|
| |
And whether I write it in LaTeX, Word or Klingon
Shorthand doesn't affect the way it appears in the
journal (including their online access) - it goes
through their editorial process long before it hits
the press (or screen). |
|
| |
If you are peer reviewing a paper and you need a visual aide (that you can't make or have made, even by that desperate post doc), you are not the right person. |
|
| |
If you are a small research group that needs a visual representation of the paper, you are not the right person, or you don't have a large enough budget. |
|
| |
If you are interested in a subject, and forking out a subscription fee to read the full paper makes you feel like you have thrown good money after bad. Subscribing to the visual representaion of the data is either throwing more good money after more bad, or making you susceptible to a wild hypthesis because it looked good in the video when you saw the cheap mock-up of the data (with obligatory disclaimers). And don't tell me anyone with a video mock up budget is going to go all in (fuck the expense). |
|
| |
If you are tasked with reading a paper and then presenting it to a group of peers whilst NOT actually making your own visual interpretation of the data, makes you more likely to miss any errors in the intial paper, repeat the paper errors (whether you got them or not, but still making them your own), and making you look like a complete twat face because there are two others on the commitee given the same info as you, by the powers that be, just to see who would bury the master's talents. |
|
| |
All in all, a complete crap idea. Most of the audience that would need this get an almost intraveinous supply from yourtub.gorm. Not saying it is bad for them, it is just horrendous for the rest of us. |
|
| |
I find the hardest part of doing a journal club talk is finding a paper which is interesting and new to the rest of the group. |
|
| |
Some other group members apparently don't have that issue - their talks are boring grinds. |
|
| |