April 6, 2014
Yeah buddy

Yeah buddy

April 5, 2014

April 4, 2014
"There are a lot of scientific papers out there. One estimate puts the count at 1.8 million articles published each year, in about 28,000 journals. Who actually reads those papers? According to one 2007 study, not many people: half of academic papers are read only by their authors and journal editors, the study’s authors write."

Smithsonian.com

They’re not supposed to be bestsellers. The point is to do something and then write it down in a searchable form.

(via osmium)

"searchable" by whom …

(via aintgotnoladytronblues)

I make music for myself and if anyone else likes it it’s a bonus.

(via tomewing)

Lol to Tom but ugh.  These statistics (and they’re not solid — academics are still writing papers about whether they’ve been determined correctly, and some of them are linked right there in the Smithsonian story) are based on citations: that is, how many times other papers cite these papers.  It’s important to the scientific community to compile these statistics, for a number of reasons (here's a good explanation that the Smithsonian piece links to) but it isn't determining how many people read papers — just how many people go on to talk about them in their own papers.  (I read papers every day at work, some of which show 0 citations on Google Scholar, so at the very least I am out there giving these lonely papers a little love.)

It’s true, they’re not supposed to be bestsellers — but the point is not “to do something and write it down in searchable form.”  The point is to contribute knowledge to your field.  A lack of citations means you probably haven’t done that — but it doesn’t mean nobody has read your paper.  It just means the people in your field who read it felt, for whatever reason, like it was not worth discussing.

Also both the Smithsonian article and the Pacific Standard article it’s piggybacking off of refer to their source for the “50% of papers are only read by their authors and editors” stat as a “study” — the Smithsonian, as seen above, with “according to one 2007 study,” and Pacific Standard with “a study at Indiana University found” — but what they link to is not a study: it’s an intro-to-citation-analysis article written by an information science researcher from Indiana University, who quotes the 50% stat in their introductory paragraph, but (ironically) never cites a source for it.  (And, given that neither article has a quote from the Indiana University researcher, I assume neither author bothered to contact them to get the source.)  For any journalists working without a fact-checker out there, this is lazy and as far as I’m concerned dishonest, and for any journalists lucky enough to have a fact-checker, this is a good guide for how to make a fact-checker hate you.

(via girlboymusic)

Of course by “something” I mean something useful, as opposed to something useless. However, I’m going to respectfully disagree with the part you wrote that I’ve put in bold. A lack of citations does not mean you haven’t done that. There have been several times in my career I’ve ended up reading a 40- or 50-year-old paper with 2 citations that has given me useful information. From beyond the grave, someone told me something I needed to know.

(via girlboymusic)

April 4, 2014
"There are a lot of scientific papers out there. One estimate puts the count at 1.8 million articles published each year, in about 28,000 journals. Who actually reads those papers? According to one 2007 study, not many people: half of academic papers are read only by their authors and journal editors, the study’s authors write."

Smithsonian.com

They’re not supposed to be bestsellers. The point is to do something and then write it down in a searchable form.

April 3, 2014
Scenes from United Brothers Fruit Market
"Are there any limes?"
"You can forget about limes. They’re through the roof."

Scenes from United Brothers Fruit Market

"Are there any limes?"

"You can forget about limes. They’re through the roof."

10:15pm
  
Filed under: lemons $1.49 for 2 
April 3, 2014

April 3, 2014
"Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption."

Chief Justice John Roberts today, explaining that big political donors do so out of the goodness of their hearts, and definitely not to influence policy

April 2, 2014

April 2, 2014
70sscifiart:

Progress! (by berliozian)

The end of this is me sitting in a hallway.

70sscifiart:

Progress! (by berliozian)

The end of this is me sitting in a hallway.

April 1, 2014