Mike Ciavarella's blog
Delft 22 - 24 October
Tom Scarpas Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Patrick Selvadurai McGill University, Canada
Wikipedia on peer review --- an excellent article, an example of wikipedia quality, and interesting anyway!Submitted by Mike Ciavarella on Sun, 2008-07-06 11:51.
Science's Editor in Chief and "Friends" Discuss Peer Review and Journal
Impact. (July 4, 2008)
Alberts1, Brooks Hanson2
and Katrina L. Kelner3 collaborated to write this
week's Science editorial on peer review. And if for no other reason
than the weekly has one of the highest impact ratings, when Science
speaks science administrators listen.
Experts say China’s wind energy could grow 1667% by 2020
Sulston argues for open medicine
and listen to audio at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7490482.stm
My friend Pugno is speculating beyond the nanomaterial strength.
I was reading this research from A&M Texas on Viagra and Watermelon.
I have noticed that it has made the front page news on many newspapers
worldwide in a matter of few days. Maybe we should move to this field,
and because below I find that there are indeed interaction with aorta stiffness and elastic wave reflections.
So if you are interested in a subject of certain high impact, this is a good idea.
Important updates (July 8th, 2008:
- Wikipedia on peer review --- an excellent article, an example of wikipedia quality, and interesting anyway!
- Science's Editor in Chief and "Friends" Discuss Peer Review and Journal Impact.
- Nobel laureate Sulston argues for open medicine
Widely disseminated and cited results—with no access restrictions!
Formal Correction: This article has been formally corrected to address the following errors.
I was reading the rejection of imechanica from NSF
And these sentences came to my mind.....
OpenWetWare is an
effort to promote the sharing of information, know-how, and wisdom
among researchers and groups who are working in biology &
biological engineering. Learn more about us.
If you would like edit access, would be interested in helping out, or want your lab website hosted on OpenWetWare, please join us.
Welcome to a Scientific American experiment in "networked
journalism," in which readers—you—get to collaborate with the author to
give a story its final form.
dear imechanica friends
the Grand challenges for Engineering make clear that we should work for the good of our Society. So, how much of technology really makes are happier?
Nanoscale holographic interferometry for strain measurements in electronic devices da Nature di Etienne Snoeck Nanoscale hologrSubmitted by Mike Ciavarella on Wed, 2008-06-25 15:39.
Materials science: Diatomic power da Nature Materials science: Diatomic power Nature 453, 1146 (2008). doi:10.1038/4531146d ASubmitted by Mike Ciavarella on Wed, 2008-06-25 15:30.
How Many Friends Is Too Many?
One MySpace exec has even surprised himself by friending a potato. This particular russet has 2,965 friends.
da Nature di
Fewer academics could be the answer to insufficient grants
Dear Imechanica friend
a recent Nature Commentary has generated a lot of interest, particularly in Europe. Maybe it is of interest, also in response to Grand Challenges for Engineering?
I suggest some lines:
Europe’s research system must change, Luke Georghiou argues. He suggests
Europe should start the process of reformow. The Commission has a responsibility to
take the lead and planning of the Eighth Framework Programme, due to start in 2013, is already under way. The grand challenges will not wait until then and member states, businesses and the scientific community must each play their part. The first challenge is one of leadership.
Speaking of Grand Challenges, why we never talk of Energy in Imechanica? There are certainly mechanical implications. And Energy is top of the list at the www.engineeringchallenges.org project.
Italy Joins European Nuclear Power Revival
“Leading Opinion: Peer review as professional responsibility: A quality control system only as good as the participants.Submitted by Mike Ciavarella on Mon, 2008-06-09 12:58.
Regarding my recent post A paper rejected by Int. J. Fatigue --- Persistent Nepotism in Peer Reviews? See this interesting paper. Later, I will show as a negative example case the review I had on Int J Fat, not so much because I am any upset about it, but for the sake of improving this process. I think my case is probably not exceptional, who knows how many receive reviews like this and they give up? Reviewers should not permitted to make such strong statements (including misunderstanding my paper) without a single reference. If I write a paper with figures, maths, references, a reviewers cannot kill it, abusing their position.