Latest in Comments on Science and Academia
-
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…
-
Rage against required templates for paper submissions
Anyone who wants to submit a paper to a computer science conference usually faces two options: Use a TeX template or use a Word template. I haven’t written TeX in thirty years as a first author (I do edit and contribute as a coauthor because it can’t be avoided) and I use Linux and hence…
-
What to make of the high-tech layoffs
To my disconcerted students: Sadly, the massive layoffs in Silicon Valley and around the world that we are currently observing are a low-frequency yet business-as-usual event. Let me tease apart the different components and draw some conclusions for your career. First of all, you may have observed how they are all happening at once. This…
-
Demonstration that Chat GPT is human
Or stupid. Probably both. Enough anthropomorphizing already.
-
Activities vs. phases
Clarity in writing is essential for successful scientific communication. A pet peeve of mine is the confusion between activity and phase, when discussing about any process, but specifically research processes based on design science. An activity is something that you do. You applied a method. You searched the web. You went for a walk. A…
-
To review or not to review
I previously reported about a bogus review for a journal submission of ours. The submission had been rejected partly or fully based on a review that obviously had nothing to do with our paper but must have been reused from before. I had complained to the editor, but I had not got any answers for…