Category: 1.1 Research (General)
-
Is science biased?
tl;dr The individual researcher typically is, but science as a community of peers isn’t. (For caveats see bottom of post.) This post was inspired by a social media post by Prem Devanbu. Individual scientists naturally have opinions, ambitions, and hopes, and this influences the research questions they chase and the hypotheses they frame. Despite many…
-
Industry is where the research data is
Over on Facebook, Lionel Briand commented on how hard it is for an academic research group to compete with industrial organizations on research. This is certainly true for hot topics. Right now, with a burning hot AI summer, the research world is split into the have and have-nots (in terms of GPU resources), and this…
-
Academic publications and what is wrong with them
The most basic academic currency are your publications. While you can’t (or shouldn’t) trade them, they are the way of how other researchers keep track of you and keep score. The higher your score, the higher you are in the pecking order, of course. A publication has two aspects to it that determine its value:…
-
The role and responsibility of an editor or PC chair
I just saw a tweet arguing that a program committee (PC) chair was being disrespectful of the reviewers, if they (the editor) overruled their (the reviewers) recommendations to accept a paper. I beg to differ. It is the PC chairs job to make the final decision on what gets into the research program and they…
-
Upcoming talks in April and May 2023
I’ll be holding the following public (free) and commercial (closed) talks and seminars in the upcoming weeks. 2023-04-20: User-led open source projects and country-level competitiveness at Fraunhofer FOKUS. 2023-04-21: Streamlining open source license compliance (our commercial seminar, through Bayave GmbH). 2023-04-24: Open-source software and sustainability (in German most likely) at the TUM Digital Sustainability lecture…
-
How to acknowledge the use of copyediting services
I looked around research papers and did not find any acknowledgments of copyediting services used. Even before Grammarly and ChatGPT, authors have used human editors, and apparently this was not worth mentioning? This seems unfair to me and may have to change in the age of chat AIs. How about this template for the acknowledgments…