The Fascinet ([info]fascinet) wrote,
@ 2008-01-21 21:00:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
I've just been asked to organize an invited session for a weird cybernetics-related conference with heavy topics like "peer reviewing."

The whole academic world seems to be imploding.

There are huge industries in the history of the university and even book-long internal debates about the best way to educate the kids. It won't be long before people start bitching about their favored method of peer reviewing.

Welcome back to the dark ages.


Additional Topics, suggested by the members of Program Committee for KGCM 2008
Analytical Communication vs. Knowledge Communication
Environmental Knowledge
Expertise Location; Expertise Capture
Faith and Knowledge: Relationships
How AI Techniques have been used in Knowledge Management
KGCM and Terminology of Studies/Management
Knowledge and the Societal System s Memory
Knowledge Application and Knowledge Distribution
Knowledge Based Systems and their Applications
Knowledge Communication and Competitive Intelligence
Knowledge Communication and Learning from Primary School to University: Giving Students a Method they will be Able to Apply in Different Areas
Analytical Communication vs. Knowledge Generation
Knowledge Discovery with Database Management Systems
Knowledge Generation: Experimental Settings vs. Formalized Mechanisms
Knowledge Modeling
Knowledge on Industrial Systems and Plant Engineering (Models and Drawings)
Knowledge Reception, Depreciation, Evaluation and Estimation
Knowledge Representation and Evolution
Knowledge Transfer
Knowledge Verification: Formalized Methods of Verification via Communication (by Communities, etc.)
Knowledge Visualization
Knowledge, non-Knowledge and the Future of the Society
Analytical Communication vs. Knowledge Management
Knowledge-Based Control
Methods of Analytical Communication
Methods of Knowledge Generation
Methods of Knowledge Management
Mobile Knowledge Generation
Mobile Knowledge Sharing
Networking & Computing Trends in Knowlege Management Systems
New Tools for Distance Learning (Higher Efficiency for Compression of Text and Graphic Images; Distance Learning for People with Deafness; Adaptive Presentation of Compound Images (Containing Texts, Pictures, etc.))
Open Access and Open Source
Personal Knowledge Management and Knowledge Generation
Convergence of Learning and Knowledge Management, Communities and Knowledge Generation/Communications
Random vs. Symmetric Knowledge
Relationships between Knowledge Engineering and Service Engineering
Relationships between Knowledge Generation and Knowledge Representation
The Knowledge Uncertainty in Decision Process
Data Disseminations and Quality of Service, Knowedge Acquirement and Representation
Data Warehousing and Data Mining
Digital Watermarking/Information Security
e-Learning
Engineering Education

(Post a new comment)


[info]dark_phoenix54
2008-01-22 04:07 am UTC (link)
Sounds like they're ideating.

(Reply to this)

[info]cincinnatus_c_
2008-01-22 05:53 am UTC (link)
Ha: I looked over the website for the conference and thought, what with the barely coherent conglomeration of topics, this looks like the annual "humanities" conference in Hawaii that charges a registration fee of like $500 and which apparently exists as an excuse for department-paid Hawaii vacations. And this conference does have a $500 registration fee!

This pre-print business is another area of difference between the sciences and humanities. Almost all humanities (well, philosophy, at least) journals are double-blind reviewed, and papers are generally closely guarded treasures until they're published. Philosophy journals also universally have policies of not considering papers that are under consideration at other journals--I don't know what the situation thatwise is in the sciences, but I hear law journals have no such policies.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]fascinet
2008-01-22 02:43 pm UTC (link)
It's considered bad form to send the same paper in to multiple journals, and since the review processes take a long time to propagate, ranging from two to four weeks from Applied Physics Letters to over a year in some cases for Physical Review, people sometimes get caught. I've seen a couple authors doing this in my own reviews and rejected the papers. That doesn't always happen, probably more due to the lax attitude of some scientists towards the review process.

This is one reason to let the reviewer know who the author is. There's far too much clutter in the literature already.

In the case of conference proceedings without peer review, like the MRS symposia, it's considered okay, though.

More often, physicists will break a paper up into chunks: a paper on synthesis of a material, a paper on one or two of the measurements of the material, a paper on the theory, and a final paper combining them with some otherwise unpublishable stuff. This isn't usually looked down upon.

Obviously, the papers aren't necessarily treasured in physics, with the popularity of the arXiv, even among experimentalists (for whom it wasn't designed, according to one of the originators [private bitching over beer]; it was supposed to be a kind of pre-print server like the working papers in economics).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…