Former Stanford president retracts Nature paper as another gets expression of concern
"The two Nature papers – which have together been cited more than 1,000 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science – were among five the university investigation examined on which Tessier-Lavigne was the principal author. The other three have been retracted – two from Science and one from Cell."
What is the German word for the intense feeling of melancholy that hits when you should feel flattered by a request to write or speak on an area of your scholarly expertise, but instead end up depressed by the reminder that your career has veered off into wildly unfulfilling admin work and away from the things you really care about? Asking for a friend. @histodons#academicchatter
Hey, #AcademicChatter, Anyone working on migration statistics/economics knows of any research trying to estimate the total global costs of visas? That is, how much money is spent in applications, language certificates, translation services, health examinations, etc.? Also on salaries of people who's job is to help others with the process.
Update on the National Science Foundation (#NSF) stance on #AI in review and proposal writing.
"A key observation for reviewers is that sharing proposal information with generative AI technology via the open internet violates the confidentiality and integrity principles of NSF's merit review process."
New study warns "that protracted PhDs and lengthy postdoctoral stints are holding back even the best scientists from 'achieving independence and tenure'."
Author argues that "universities should have more flexible rules that allow them to promote people quicker if they prove to be 'really outstanding in their early steps' [...and that] funding should shift to younger scientists,"
The controversy over university presidents who gave lawyerly answers in Congress about punishing students who call for genocide reflects the reality of college free speech codes that try to both encourage debate and stop hatred.
On the #enshitification of #academic#publishing. Where scientists burn the candle at both ends, paying to read and publish their work, in what is the ultimate grift.
I'm creating an extra credit question and I'm mocking up studies that sound good in media reporting but when you look closer, they're heavily flawed. I already did a scenario of teen social media and mental health. Suggestions for others that would be covered as causal in media?
Just attended a graduate group meeting intended for grad students, led by our student group rep and the dept chair. Very informal, held at a time that wasn't totally, unreasonable. Attendance was poor, yet I learned a LOT about structure, governance, budget by asking at this mtg.
If you think things could be going better @ your school, remember that showing up is an important part of change. Even emailing to say you need a better time for the mtg if you do. @academicchatter#AcademicChatter
Can someone tell me that having the outcome I want is more important than being right?
I really struggle with letting go of someone putting the blame on me and saying that they will be gracious as the blame is shared, but it's not worth antagonising them... #AcademicChatter#Fairness@academicchatter
Exciting news! RMIT's DERC has "soft launched" their new lab on Digital Hostility and Disinformation. Our new lab is working on panels, conferences, and publications. Tropics we're exploring include online abuse and hate speech, misinformation, and solutions for platform misuse.
The LGBTQ+ study I'm assisting with for the lab is still open and can be found on my profile!
So is this the deal with the new @eLife system:
1- you send your preprint
2- it is reviewed (if they so choose)
3- you eventually upload a final “version of record”
4- you send that version (+reviews) to another journal for publication
Has anyone tried that step 4? Do the “other journals” accept to publish something that’s already been reviewed & published by eLife?
Of course, you could skip step 4 but does having an eLife paper under the new system “count” for your CV?
@elduvelle I think it does. It's the equivalent of f1000 research or wellcome open research paper being accepted past peer review stage.
It's a public statement that the paper has changed to the satisfaction of @eLife reviewers, which in itself is a CV worthy achievement, personally. #academicchatter@academicchatter
Hi,
I have a question about academic job applications.
Is it a pretty universal rule that your recommendation letter writers should be senior to you in academic rank? Obviously this is true for people applying out of their PhDs and Post-Docs, but is it also true of tenured but-not-full professors? What are the general rules of thumb here?
Good thread @mattblaze on PhD application processes for potential candidates.
It is written with STEM in mind but applies to social sciences as well. All disciplines, really.
My 2 cents: Individual profs don't usually make acceptance decisions on their own. They don't have power on admissions policies, scholarships, or visas.
Universities need to be more transparent on the actual process of acceptance.