Academic Publication-what is the big deal?

I think a number on this board have published actually. My hand is up too.

An article came out today in Inside Higher Ed about the budget as well as perception of research in fields outside the hard sciences. I don't think the board allows links or I'd publish it. In short social sciences took a hit. The article captures some of what has been discussed in this thread. The comments that follow the article are also revealing. If this thread is remotely interesting to you this article might be too. I think it is titled 'Symbolic Slap at Social Sciences.'

 

Okay: :banana:

 

Repeat post. Sorry

 

As an anonymous poster, your opinions and arguments may carry weight, but your experiences do not since they are not observable by others. :nono:

But if you would like to provide the bibliographical data for your publications, I'm sure many would be interested in reading them.

 

I can see you couldn't resist returning to "needle mode" for very long. Sigh.

Do we need to clarify that your experiences carry no weight either? Heck, let's delete all the threads that don't contain proper referencing and a full CV. Of course, we wouldn't have much left. Well, except for your posts, since those are canon. Do you plan to upload transcripts so we can verify your educational experiences? I mean, otherwise we're taking your word for it.

I won't be providing bibliographic data of course. That's half the point of a board- a safe place to discuss and ask questions. You should know better than that.

The thread isn't about either of us so you say? Then leave "us" out of it and move on. Take your own advice. As stated previously, you can't do it. I recommend you end every post with "and I slipped in the last word." Or another ridiculous emoticon.

Let's put the timer on it....cue ticky-tack barb from Rich ======> how long will it take?

 

RFValve thanks for the post. Your comment about degrees and the business world is spot on. No accreditation or certification is perfect but perhaps they are enough of a proxy as to make them valuable (or as close to valuable as we can get)

 

Cute. Either way it feeds your ego. So let's go with this.

I'm known by others here. Some have met me in person, others in other ways. Some I've done business with, others just lunch. There is no doubt who I am.

I've never met Steve Levicoff in person, but he is known to me. I believe Steve when he references his experiences or education because so much else about him is verifiable without having to rely upon him as a source. The same is true for hundreds of others who have or do post here. Including me. Not including you.

And that's fine. There's nothing inherently wrong with posting anonymously, and a lot to be gained (or avoided). It's certainly not a reflection on you, whoever you are.

You said you've published academically. Okay, that's great. May we have the biographical information so we may enjoy your research? Or do you need to rely upon ad hominem as your only argument? Yes, how long will it take?

 

Which part was cute, so I can use it again sometime?

No dice. This thread's not about me. Or my credibility. Cue?

Or we can put this to bed and proceed with the thread. (phdorbust, 2014)

 

Agreed. I guess we'll never get to read your stuff. I'm disappointed, but that's your call, of course.

 

I think publishing is a great way of disseminating knowledge.

What I have come to despise is the oligopoly of scientific publishers.

 

Can you say more?

For me, I'm not convinced that all blind or even peer review is fair. I've seen anecdotally some things slide through that I believe had something to do with the authors. I've also had blind submissions submitted and returned to me with details about me that I didn't include in my submission. I'm not sure it rises to the level of conspiracy, but rather it simply struck me as odd. Excessive info mining perhaps.

 

Maybe they read internet degree forums....rivateeye:

 

Ha! Perhaps. My experiences were on accepted manuscripts. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been impressed on that basis haha. I think some journals play a little loose with the blinding process.

 

Since you won't reveal your published articles, would you mind sharing which journals you've been published in? There are somewhere upwards of 40,000+ journals out there, I'm thinking your identity is safe.

 

I'd rather not. I hear what you're saying but these days it isn't that hard to compromise identity. I'd also rather not call out the journal either. It's a small world in some disciplines. I'm also not sure what difference it would make in our discussion.

 

Okay, but as a scientist, certainly you understand that a phenomenon without evidence isn't even a theory. It's just conjecture. The null hypothesis is called that because we begin with the presumption that something doesn't exist, isn't true, there'll be no change, etc. And for something to rise to the level of a hypothesis there should be good evidence supporting its testing. Even then, it still bears testing.

We are offered none. Of course, the body of your posting here, over time, might give "you" some gravitas, depending on what you post.

 

The circular nature if this thread has worn me out. I'm out. Discussion threads are not great places to scientifically vet claims. You guys have fun sorting it all out. Heck, this thread would make a great pilot for a qualitative study. Let's call it 'thread degeneration and credential verification in a consequence-free environment.'

Best of luck to all.

 

Interesting thought process for quantitative thinking:
1. A phenomenon without evidence isn't even a theory. It's just conjecture.
2. The null hypothesis is called that because we begin with the presumption that something doesn't exist, isn't true, there'll be no change, etc.
3. And for something to rise to the level of a hypothesis there should be good evidence supporting its testing.

 

Actually, it isn't quantitative or qualitative. It is deductive as opposed to inductive.

In deductive research, one goes from theory to data. That is, you have some reason for thinking something might be a certain way. (Prior evidence, related research, etc.) You form an "armchair" theory about it, construct hypothesis regarding that theory, then test the hypotheses. If the hypotheses hold up, your theory is supported. If not, then not. (And many points in between.)

With inductive research, you start with the phenomenon, amass data, then build an explanation (theory) of how/why it is what it is. In some extreme forms (like in classic grounded theory), you start with little or no prior knowledge of--and preconceptions of--the phenomenon. The resultant theory is considered "grounded" in the data and, thus, supported. Again, that data can be quantitative, qualitative, or both.

Quantitative and qualitative are methods groups. Induction and deduction are ways of thinking and researching.

In the above situation, we were presented with a conjecture (that the poster had published academically) offered by him. We know how the phenomenon works generally, so testing the idea is pretty straight-forward: I asked for citations to the work. We didn't get them. Thus, deductively, the idea (hypothesis) that what he/she said is true is not supported. It may very well be true, but we shouldn't assume it without some support. In fact, we should assume quite the opposite.

I suggested an alternative data set--his/her posts over time. Perhaps they will be revealing beyond the first few dozen or so.

Instead, the poster chose to disengage. A good idea since there was nothing left to offer.