|
CP is up and running again - hopefully for a long time - and even letting me log in! 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry about that. We managed to lock up the SQL Server.
"Mistakes are prevented by Experience. Experience is gained by making mistakes."
|
|
|
|
|
You sound like you are quite proud of that! 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm waiting for an article or or probably rather a tip/trick
|
|
|
|
|
Retractions of scientific journal papers are increasing nowadays. Sometimes, highly cited papers also get retracted. There is indeed something called 'Retraction Watch'. Looks like the 'bug' of instant fame and glory has bitten some of today's scientists, researchers.
Wonder how the Universities which employ such 'Retraction Scientists' will handle them subsequent to retraction, in terms of tenure, salary hikes, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
More likely the bug of "publish or perish".
|
|
|
|
|
Or maybe "fudge and publish sooner".
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely what it's become.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
Sabine is quite honest.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
I'd consider looking into the peer review process, as maybe it could use tightening up.
Researchers are bound to make mistakes without peer review, for the same reason you don't proof read your own resume or review your own code.
My husband - when he had time for it - would peer review articles in his field, so I know a little about the process, and what I do know of it seems it's heavily reliant on the individuals doing the peer review.
It's essentially crowdsourcing review to try and find mistakes, but maybe they need to be more selective about their crowds?
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like it's becoming like -
'I'll pat your back, you pat mine'.
|
|
|
|
|
Part of the problem is more and more on-line "journals" are bypassing the peer review process. Peer review is by no means perfect, but it's better than bypassing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Yikes. They aren't really journals then - they're magazines. 
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
obermd wrote: Part of the problem is more and more on-line "journals" are bypassing the peer review process.
Stating that a bit more clearly.
Obviously it is much easier for an online journal to exist that a print journal and thus there are many new ones.
And many of that have a 'pay to publish' model. So the author pays to have the study published. Some of those journals claim to have a peer review process. But although there might be a very few exceptions it is most likely just a rubber stamp process.
However in the same way I suspect it is very unlikely that those journals are retracting anything. Wouldn't surprise me if the only possible model would be if the original author paid again to have it retracted.
|
|
|
|
|
I've done a bit of peer review in my area of expertise over the years.
Peer review kind-of relies on the fact that what you're reading in the paper is honest. A reviewer can't be expected to recreate the results - the peer review process is intended to ensure that the paper's conclusions could reasonably be drawn from the results that are presented and the reported interpretation isn't simply fiction. If the reported results are incorrect, that's very difficult for the reviewer to ascertain.
There are many reasons for reported results to be "incorrect". Typos in spreadsheets, confirmation bias, commercial interest, the "publish or perish" model that obermd has already mentioned . . . simple dishonesty . . . I'm sure you can think of others.
Peer review is not perfect . . . but it's way better than the "no peer review" that some pay-for-publication portals allow.
Treading on the toes of giants . . .
modified 17-Aug-24 16:37pm.
|
|
|
|
|
QuantumPlumber wrote: but it's way better than the "no peer review" that some pay-for-publication portals allow.
I suspect most have no peer review.
And those that claim it I suspect most are just a rubber stamp. Certainly myself I would suspect any journal even with a peer review claim that operates like that.
|
|
|
|
|
yup
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Amarnath S wrote: Retractions of scientific journal papers are increasing nowadays
Somewhat over the past 10 years or so they have learned that the criteria for judging data as showing a positive result was too 'loose'.
This is especially true in the social and psychological sciences.
I believe they (real journals) have now tightened that up.
Of course none of that applies for pay to publish journals.
|
|
|
|
|
and this is why, when people say, "Follow the science..." it's far more important to follow the money.
Decades ago, I "helped" a grad student that was doing some ground breaking research in gallium arsenide photovoltaic semiconductors. He published his results 1 week after some other person published theirs. Didn't matter the data, first person gets to be declared the expert.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
So I just watched about ten minutes of a video from a big influencer who is complaining of false advertising when some streaming service says you can pay more for 4K video, but doesn't tell you that you need 4K capable hardware.
The guy is throwing out curse words and saying this is a legitimate reason to pirate the content. 
Some people will think they are entitled to just about everything.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: ...a big influencer who is complaining of false advertising when some streaming service says you can pay more for 4K video, but doesn't tell you that you need 4K capable hardware.
Pretty much sums up the 'influencer' intellect. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
|
|
|
"stop making stupid people famous"
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: So I just watched about ten minutes of a video from a big influencer
Why did you do that? It's 10 minutes of your life wasted, and you will never get it back.Richard Andrew x64 wrote: who is complaining of false advertising when some streaming service says you can pay more for 4K video, but doesn't tell you that you need 4K capable hardware.
I see two sides to this. 4K video does have its purposes, but do you really need to have it? If you're just streaming a movie, it doesn't make a difference to what you see on the screen w/ 4K. 4K is something like 4 times the resolution as 1080p. Our sense of sight as humans cannot differentiate 4K video vs. standard full HD video. When you think about the highest quality resolution for printing graphics onto paper, the standard is 300 dpi. When you design for the web, your graphics are almost always at 72 dpi. If you raise the dpi in either medium, you can't see any difference (provided your viewport is displaying @ 100%). 4K resolution is great for displaying things like QR codes. The average camera takes photos with a resolution that can make use of 4K. If you see a QR code on a 4K TV, you can scan it with your phone from farther away. With standard HD, you'll need to get closer to the TV to scan the code. That's just one good purpose for 4K, but I'm sure there are others.
Does the claim of false advertising hold up?
Consider the purchase of a DVD movie. It's just a physical disc inside a box. Would any reasonable person purchase a DVD movie without acquiring a DVD player? Is the DVD publisher responsible for informing you that a DVD player is required to watch the DVD? In addition, liability for false advertising is usually covered in the fine print when you purchase a product or service.
Recently, I bought a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator. I can't run it, because my fairly new laptop doesn't have the minimum required hardware to do so. Before buying the game, I assumed that my laptop could run it. I did review the hardware requirements for the game before buying it, but didn't think too much of it because my laptop is new enough to handle running such a game (or so I thoguht). Who's at fault for this mistake? I am. If I had taken the time to make sure I have the needed hardware for the game, I wouldn't have bought it.Richard Andrew x64 wrote: The guy is throwing out curse words and saying this is a legitimate reason to pirate the content.
It sounds as though this influencer's limited vocabulary is on par with his limited intellect. For him to assert that his unfounded claim of false advertising provides him the legal and moral right to steal intellectual property is borderline delusional. I can see the FBI hearing of this, and I imagine an FBI agent busting out in laughter with tears running down his face.Richard Andrew x64 wrote: Some people will think they are entitled to just about everything.
Just about. The only entitlement this influencer has is to be stupid. You can't fix stupid. If this guy is an 'influencer', then who are the people that he influences? He can have his entitlement to be stupid, but having an entitlement to spread stupidity to others is egregious.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Raw wrote: Would any reasonable person purchase a DVD movie without acquiring a DVD player?
Long ago I had a real go getter boss in a software retail store that would come in to show how things should be done.
He talked the woman into buying a spreadsheet program in just a few moments. He was done for the day and on to the next store.
The woman came back several days later to return the software. She did not own a computer. She wanted a calculator (hand held variety.) The store did not sell those.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
