posts about or somewhat related to ‘journals’

Porn Studies is the first dedicated, international, peer-reviewed journal to critically explore those cultural products and services designated as pornographic and their cultural, economic, historical, institutional, legal and social contexts. Porn Studies will publish innovative work examining specifically sexual and explicit media forms, their connections to wider media landscapes and their links to the broader spheres of (sex) work across historical periods and national contexts.

Porn Studies is an interdisciplinary journal informed by critical sexuality studies and work exploring the intersection of sexuality, gender, race, class, age and ability. It focuses on developing knowledge of pornographies past and present, in all their variations and around the world. Because pornography studies are still in their infancy we are also interested in discussions that focus on theoretical approaches, methodology and research ethics. Alongside articles, the journal includes a forum devoted to shorter observations, developments, debates or issues in porn studies, designed to encourage exchange and debate.

— Announcement from England’s Routledge Publishing, an academic publisher of books, journals and online reference materials. In the announcement (PDF), the editors make a call for papers and say the first issue of Porn Studies will come out in Spring 2014.

“See that word?” he said. “Right there. That is not science.”

The word was “lone,” as in “PvPlm is the lone plasmepsin in the food vacuole of Plasmodium vivax.” It was a filthy word. A non-scientific word. A flowery word, a lyrical word, a word worthy of — ugh — an MFA student.

I hadn’t meant the word to be poetic. I had just used the word “only” five or six times, and I didn’t want to use it again. But in his mind, “lone” must have conjured images of PvPlm perched on a cliff’s edge, staring into the empty chasm, weeping gently for its aspartic protease companions. Oh, the good times they shared. Afternoons spent cleaving scissile bonds. Lazy mornings decomposing foreign proteins into their constituent amino acids at a nice, acidic pH. Alas, lone plasmepsin, those days are gone.

So I changed the word to “only.” And it hurt. Not because “lone” was some beautiful turn of phrase but because of the lesson I had learned: Any word beyond the expected set — even a word as tame and innocuous as “lone” — apparently doesn’t belong in science.

I’m still fairly new at this science thing. I’m less than 4 years beyond the dark days of grad school and the adviser who wouldn’t tolerate “lone.” So forgive my naïveté when I ask: Why the hell not?<.p>

— Adam Ruben, Science, How to Write Like a Scientist.

jtotheizzoe:

The trouble with retractions
Retractions of scientific papers are up 10-fold, but publishing rates are only up by 44%. What gives? Why is so much research being pulled back, or worse, declared fraudulent?
(via Nature News)

The FJP: Here&#8217;s a potential answer for you. It comes courtesy of an article in The Register about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project that we Tumbled earlier today. In it, Richard Muller, the project lead, discusses that science needs to be more open in its publishing practices.

When contacted by The Reg, Muller responded in an email that he believes scientific papers should be widely circulated in &#8220;preprint&#8221; form before their publication. &#8220;It has been traditional throughout most of my career to distribute preprints around the world,&#8221; he writes. &#8220;In fact, most universities and laboratories had &#8216;preprint libraries&#8217; where you could frequently find colleagues.&#8221;
This preprint system, he told us, is being stifled by major journals. &#8220;This traditional peer-review system worked much better than the current Science/Nature system, which in my mind restricts the peer review to 2 or 3 anonymous people who often give a cursory look at the paper.&#8221;
While this more tightly controlled review method may enhance the prestige of major journals, Muller told us, it does nothing for the advancement of science.
"I think this abandonment of the traditional peer review system is responsible, in part, for the fact that so many bad papers are being published,&#8221; he writes. &#8220;These papers have not be vetted by the true peers, the large scientific world.&#8221;

jtotheizzoe:

The trouble with retractions

Retractions of scientific papers are up 10-fold, but publishing rates are only up by 44%. What gives? Why is so much research being pulled back, or worse, declared fraudulent?

(via Nature News)

The FJP: Here’s a potential answer for you. It comes courtesy of an article in The Register about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project that we Tumbled earlier today. In it, Richard Muller, the project lead, discusses that science needs to be more open in its publishing practices.

When contacted by The Reg, Muller responded in an email that he believes scientific papers should be widely circulated in “preprint” form before their publication. “It has been traditional throughout most of my career to distribute preprints around the world,” he writes. “In fact, most universities and laboratories had ‘preprint libraries’ where you could frequently find colleagues.”

This preprint system, he told us, is being stifled by major journals. “This traditional peer-review system worked much better than the current Science/Nature system, which in my mind restricts the peer review to 2 or 3 anonymous people who often give a cursory look at the paper.”

While this more tightly controlled review method may enhance the prestige of major journals, Muller told us, it does nothing for the advancement of science.

"I think this abandonment of the traditional peer review system is responsible, in part, for the fact that so many bad papers are being published,” he writes. “These papers have not be vetted by the true peers, the large scientific world.”

(via darylelockhart)