The FRIAM journal. WAS: NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical

[Nick Thompson]

Well, not quite so fast, Glen!

Look.  How many papers do you read a day?  How do you decide which papers to
read?

You can form an organization of like-minded folks that puts before you only
the papers that that organization thinks are good.  (i.e., an archival
Journal)

You can set up some "wisdom-of-the-crowd" scheme that votes on which papers
are good.

Not clear to me whether I fear the authoritarian way any more than I fear
mob psychology.  

For most authors, the disagreeable fact is that a lot of people are reading
a few papers, and most papers are not read by anybody

Perhaps it's the J-distribution of hits on papers we should be worrying
about.  

Perhaps we need a paper evaluation system that's more like Pandora: You get
what you ask for, except that every once in a while the system throws you a
song by an obscure composer,  just to keep you honest.  I have often
wondered if FRIAM (or the sfcomplex) could set itself up as a "Journal".
An author has a new paper, and sends it to the list.  It goes up on an
internal website and people start assigning stars and making comments.  When
it reaches a threshold of "stardom" it goes up on a public website.  The
author can set the star-threshhold.  (In otherwords, if the author wants to
"publish" a paper that his fellow FRIAM members think is shitty,  he sets
the threshold real low.)  Readers of the public website can set a star
threshold, below which the data base will not display a paper for them.
However, by common agreement, the data base is rigged so that it slips
readers a non conforming paper randomly about ten percent of the time.  

        For a sampling of some lovely papers that have not been read by
anybody (}:-[), please visit:

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org




-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:32 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic
Chemical

Nicholas Thompson wrote  circa 12/07/2010 08:53 AM:
> You know, it wasn't SO long ago (i.e., I remember it) that SOME
> journals thought of themselves as "archival," and their reviewers* saw
> their role as defending the pages of those journals against error.  In
> that context, getting published was supposed to be the end of a
conversation, not a
> beginning.   I don't know if, and where, that view survives.  

I hope it's completely dead.  It should be obvious that authoritarianism is
bad.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen ep ropella]

OK.  I can take your point.  However, my objection is not to
_recommendation_.  My objection is to the "error free" part ... or even
just the "error" part.

I recommend papers that contain errors all the time.  Hell, since I'm a
programmer, and since no code is bug free, I actually _sell_ buggy code!
 Can you believe that?  What a hit to my reputation! ;-)  Even more
pointedly, you guys just finished a math seminar where one of the
primary topics was that what gets published doesn't reflect the actual
thought processes that led up to the published part!  Why?  Because we
don't get to see the "errors".  Hiding the errors is effectively the
same as hiding the core idea.  It's at least equivalent to hiding the
process by which smart people actually think.

The point isn't about recommendations, it's about the presumption and
arrogance that "our journal has fewer errors than yours".  Now, I'm all
for curation.  But I'm also a big believer in _dissent_.  I'm OK with
everyone calling me a wacko or idiot; but I'm not OK with shutting up us
wackos and idiots by restricting the media to words spoken only by the wise.

So, I like your ideas for recommendation and would participate or help
set it up if there's any traction to it.  But I dislike the idea of
"defending an archive from errors".  That's well described by "throwing
the baby out with the bath water."

Oh, since you plugged your papers, I'll plug our most recent one:

   Cloud Computing and Validation of Expandable In Silico Livers
   http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/4/168/abstract

It's not rocket science and I'm sure it contains "errors" (the first few
we submitted were obliterated by the reviewers, bless their hearts); but
at least it's available for criticism. ;-)  Oh, and you can comment on
the journal's website, too!

-glen

Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 10-12-07 10:58 AM:

> Well, not quite so fast, Glen!
>
> Look.  How many papers do you read a day?  How do you decide which papers to
> read?
>
> You can form an organization of like-minded folks that puts before you only
> the papers that that organization thinks are good.  (i.e., an archival
> Journal)
>
> You can set up some "wisdom-of-the-crowd" scheme that votes on which papers
> are good.
>
> Not clear to me whether I fear the authoritarian way any more than I fear
> mob psychology.  
>
> For most authors, the disagreeable fact is that a lot of people are reading
> a few papers, and most papers are not read by anybody
>
> Perhaps it's the J-distribution of hits on papers we should be worrying
> about.  
>
> Perhaps we need a paper evaluation system that's more like Pandora: You get
> what you ask for, except that every once in a while the system throws you a
> song by an obscure composer,  just to keep you honest.  I have often
> wondered if FRIAM (or the sfcomplex) could set itself up as a "Journal".
> An author has a new paper, and sends it to the list.  It goes up on an
> internal website and people start assigning stars and making comments.  When
> it reaches a threshold of "stardom" it goes up on a public website.  The
> author can set the star-threshhold.  (In otherwords, if the author wants to
> "publish" a paper that his fellow FRIAM members think is shitty,  he sets
> the threshold real low.)  Readers of the public website can set a star
> threshold, below which the data base will not display a paper for them.
> However, by common agreement, the data base is rigged so that it slips
> readers a non conforming paper randomly about ten percent of the time.  
>
> For a sampling of some lovely papers that have not been read by
> anybody (}:-[), please visit:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Nick Thompson]

Glen,

I like the journal format and I am sure I would like the paper if I could
understand a word of it.  This reminds me of one of the most inconvenient of
truths:  I am not competent to read everything.  

I loved the idea of "in silico livers" as people who resided in the area
around San Jose, California.  

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 12:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The FRIAM journal. WAS: NASA-Funded Research Discovers
Life Built With Toxic Chemical


OK.  I can take your point.  However, my objection is not to
_recommendation_.  My objection is to the "error free" part ... or even just
the "error" part.

I recommend papers that contain errors all the time.  Hell, since I'm a
programmer, and since no code is bug free, I actually _sell_ buggy code!
 Can you believe that?  What a hit to my reputation! ;-)  Even more
pointedly, you guys just finished a math seminar where one of the primary
topics was that what gets published doesn't reflect the actual thought
processes that led up to the published part!  Why?  Because we don't get to
see the "errors".  Hiding the errors is effectively the same as hiding the
core idea.  It's at least equivalent to hiding the process by which smart
people actually think.

The point isn't about recommendations, it's about the presumption and
arrogance that "our journal has fewer errors than yours".  Now, I'm all for
curation.  But I'm also a big believer in _dissent_.  I'm OK with everyone
calling me a wacko or idiot; but I'm not OK with shutting up us wackos and
idiots by restricting the media to words spoken only by the wise.

So, I like your ideas for recommendation and would participate or help set
it up if there's any traction to it.  But I dislike the idea of "defending
an archive from errors".  That's well described by "throwing the baby out
with the bath water."

Oh, since you plugged your papers, I'll plug our most recent one:

   Cloud Computing and Validation of Expandable In Silico Livers
   http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/4/168/abstract

It's not rocket science and I'm sure it contains "errors" (the first few we
submitted were obliterated by the reviewers, bless their hearts); but at
least it's available for criticism. ;-)  Oh, and you can comment on the
journal's website, too!

-glen

Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 10-12-07 10:58 AM:

> Well, not quite so fast, Glen!
>
> Look.  How many papers do you read a day?  How do you decide which
> papers to read?
>
> You can form an organization of like-minded folks that puts before you
> only the papers that that organization thinks are good.  (i.e., an
> archival
> Journal)
>
> You can set up some "wisdom-of-the-crowd" scheme that votes on which
> papers are good.
>
> Not clear to me whether I fear the authoritarian way any more than I
> fear mob psychology.
>
> For most authors, the disagreeable fact is that a lot of people are
> reading a few papers, and most papers are not read by anybody
>
> Perhaps it's the J-distribution of hits on papers we should be
> worrying about.
>
> Perhaps we need a paper evaluation system that's more like Pandora:
> You get what you ask for, except that every once in a while the system
> throws you a song by an obscure composer,  just to keep you honest.  I
> have often wondered if FRIAM (or the sfcomplex) could set itself up as a

"Journal".
> An author has a new paper, and sends it to the list.  It goes up on an
> internal website and people start assigning stars and making comments.  
> When it reaches a threshold of "stardom" it goes up on a public
> website.  The author can set the star-threshhold.  (In otherwords, if
> the author wants to "publish" a paper that his fellow FRIAM members
> think is shitty,  he sets the threshold real low.)  Readers of the
> public website can set a star threshold, below which the data base will
not display a paper for them.
> However, by common agreement, the data base is rigged so that it slips
> readers a non conforming paper randomly about ten percent of the time.
>
> For a sampling of some lovely papers that have not been read by
> anybody (}:-[), please visit:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org