Comments on: Rejecta Mathematica http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=406 Now living at http://scienceblogs.com/sunclipse/ Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:57:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Mr. Gunn http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=406#comment-22224 Mr. Gunn Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:40:56 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=406#comment-22224 For a great example of this, see the <a href="http://www.jnrbm.com/" rel="nofollow">Journal of Negative Results</a>. For a great example of this, see the Journal of Negative Results.

]]> By: Blake Stacey http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=406#comment-20947 Blake Stacey Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:08:37 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=406#comment-20947 It's certainly a <i>subset</i> of what the arXiv is for. The question to which my mind keeps returning is how we can establish a system which gives academic folks credit for papers that uphold the null hypothesis, and such. Countering the file-drawer effect could be beneficial all around. I'm rather doubtful that <i>Rej. Math.</i> will gain enough renown for publications therein to look good on the ol' CV, however. It’s certainly a subset of what the arXiv is for. The question to which my mind keeps returning is how we can establish a system which gives academic folks credit for papers that uphold the null hypothesis, and such. Countering the file-drawer effect could be beneficial all around. I’m rather doubtful that Rej. Math. will gain enough renown for publications therein to look good on the ol’ CV, however.

]]> By: Coin http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=406#comment-20946 Coin Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:05:41 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=406#comment-20946 ...hm, never mind blogs, isn't this what the <i>Arxiv</i> is for? …hm, never mind blogs, isn’t this what the Arxiv is for?

]]> By: The algorithm (comment rej. from Science because "stuffs" is not the plural of "stuff") http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=406#comment-20776 The algorithm (comment rej. from Science because "stuffs" is not the plural of "stuff") Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:38:34 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=406#comment-20776 The <a href="http://skepdic.com/filedrawer.html" rel="nofollow">file-drawer effect</a> is important in empirical stuffs. Studies that fail to reject the null hypothesis usually don't get published. That's a shame because they're important. If there are two studies of some hypothesis, and one finds an effect and the other doesn't, folks really need to know that the positive finding is contested. Perhaps someone will scrutinize the two experimental designs and find that--ha!--the positive study didn't control for variable XYZ but the negative study did. So I could totally dig a peer-reviewed journal of (say) experimental psychology seeking out rigorously achieved, insightfully interpreted, and important <i>non</i>-results. The journal vs. blag question's interesting. In the case of null results, one argument for a journal is that publication helps out a scholar's resume in a way that blog posts rarely do, and it would surely be good for experimenters' objectivity if they didn't feel their career hinged on an experiment coming out the right way. In either context I'm not sure "journal" and "no technical review" can live happily together. If papers are skimmed lightly, that justifies tagging them as "not rubbish" in the arXiv or some interface thereto. But not publishing. Or so I think; naysaying's easy, but tomorrow we could be welcoming our new masters at Rejecta Publications. The file-drawer effect is important in empirical stuffs. Studies that fail to reject the null hypothesis usually don’t get published.

That’s a shame because they’re important. If there are two studies of some hypothesis, and one finds an effect and the other doesn’t, folks really need to know that the positive finding is contested. Perhaps someone will scrutinize the two experimental designs and find that–ha!–the positive study didn’t control for variable XYZ but the negative study did. So I could totally dig a peer-reviewed journal of (say) experimental psychology seeking out rigorously achieved, insightfully interpreted, and important non-results.

The journal vs. blag question’s interesting. In the case of null results, one argument for a journal is that publication helps out a scholar’s resume in a way that blog posts rarely do, and it would surely be good for experimenters’ objectivity if they didn’t feel their career hinged on an experiment coming out the right way.

In either context I’m not sure “journal” and “no technical review” can live happily together. If papers are skimmed lightly, that justifies tagging them as “not rubbish” in the arXiv or some interface thereto. But not publishing. Or so I think; naysaying’s easy, but tomorrow we could be welcoming our new masters at Rejecta Publications.

]]> By: Blake Stacey http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=406#comment-20689 Blake Stacey Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:39:29 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=406#comment-20689 Good point. I don't think we need to fret about getting libraries to carry a free, Creative-Commons-licensed online journal. However, as you say, the journal system might not be the best place to convey such information, and so resources (time and money) devoted to managing this journal would then be better spent elsewhere. Good point. I don’t think we need to fret about getting libraries to carry a free, Creative-Commons-licensed online journal. However, as you say, the journal system might not be the best place to convey such information, and so resources (time and money) devoted to managing this journal would then be better spent elsewhere.

]]> By: Isabel http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=406#comment-20688 Isabel Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:29:22 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=406#comment-20688 One thing I didn't say in my original post: isn't this what, say, blogs are for? I guess I'm skeptical of starting new journals when it's so hard to get libraries to carry the old ones. I like the idea of having a venue for these sorts of things -- obviously, as I mentioned -- but I'm not sure if the traditional journal system is that venue. One thing I didn’t say in my original post: isn’t this what, say, blogs are for? I guess I’m skeptical of starting new journals when it’s so hard to get libraries to carry the old ones. I like the idea of having a venue for these sorts of things — obviously, as I mentioned — but I’m not sure if the traditional journal system is that venue.

]]>