9 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2021
  2. Feb 2021
    1. The Rights Retention Strategy provides a challenge to the vital income that is necessary to fund the resources, time, and effort to provide not only the many checks, corrections, and editorial inputs required but also the management and support of a rigorous peer review process

      This is an untested statement and does not take into account the perspectives of those contributing to the publishers' revenue. The Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) relies on the author's accepted manuscript (AAM) and for an AAM to exist and to have the added value from peer-review a Version of Record (VoR) must exist. Libraries recognise this fundamental principle and continue to subscribe to individual journals of merit and support lucrative deals with publishers. From some (not all) librarians' and possibly funders' perspectives these statements could undermine any mutual respect.

  3. Nov 2020
  4. Oct 2020
  5. Aug 2020
  6. Jul 2020
  7. May 2020
  8. Nov 2018
    1. The better way I found to do review is to replace ALL review lecturing with problems that the students  solve in class that cover the material I want to review. 

      I can relate this to my earlier experiences. Active involvement and students' engagement is guaranteed if they are tasked with solving actual physics problems related to the materials being taught before.

  9. Mar 2016
    1. I really hate to admit this, but you do the same thing with your competitors asyou do with grant agencies. You sucker-punch them. You might have—when Isubmit a paper, I already have the next two or three papers’ worth of data. Imean, I know what I’m going to be publishing a year from now, mostly. But thepaper that comes out of my lab is Part A. Parts B and C are mostly on my desk.And I’ve put things in part A to basically entice my competitors into making anass out of themselves, or to second guess, or say, ‘‘Oh that must be wrongbecause of that, or something.’

      Gaming referees.