discussion

Peer Review Discussion

by Kelle April 23, 2012

Taking on yet another angle of related to our past discussions about posting to the arXiv before acceptance, citation etiquette, let’s talk about the peer review process. Here are some articles describing the current peer review process: A quick guide to writing a solid peer review, PDF. Nature’s Peer Review Policy Refereeing Wiki Page What’s […]

{ 29 comments }

Read more →

Why write collaboratively?

by Jane April 9, 2012

Let’s talk about how we write. The primary output of astronomers are papers and proposals — we have to obtain data & money, publish results, and repeat.  Here, I’m going to argue that we should write some of those words more collaboratively. Our default method of writing was invented when colleagues communicated by postal mail with […]

{ 15 comments }

Read more →

What’s our Greatest Weakness?

by Kelle March 14, 2012

I’m curious: What do ya’ll think is the bit of professional astronomy that most needs to be changed? Regardless of government funding levels, is there one thing that’s holding us back from being the best astronomers we can be more than others? What’s our greatest weakness? Is it the disconnect between course work (theory) and […]

{ 33 comments }

Read more →

To Post or Not to Post: Publishing to the ArXiv Before Acceptance

by Kelle December 12, 2011

Inspired by a discussion elsewhere, I’d like start an open thread about the pros and cons of posting a paper to the arXiv before it’s accepted by a refereed journal. To get the convo going, here’s my summary of what came out of the previous discussion: Pros to posting before acceptance: Problems and omissions get […]

{ 64 comments }

Read more →