178 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2024
    1. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000382988.locale=fr

      Voici quelques critiques vis à vis des acteurs non étatiques dans l'éducation qui sont mentionnées dans le rapport de la page :

      • Ils peuvent violer le droit à l'éducation en imposant des frais de scolarité, en discriminant certains groupes ou en offrant une qualité médiocre.
      • Ils peuvent aggraver les inégalités et la ségrégation en créant des systèmes éducatifs parallèles qui favorisent les élites ou les communautés privilégiées.
      • Ils peuvent influencer de manière indue les politiques publiques en matière d'éducation en faisant du lobbying, en finançant des recherches biaisées ou en captant des ressources publiques.
      • Ils peuvent échapper au contrôle et à la réglementation des gouvernements en opérant dans l'informalité, en dissimulant leurs informations ou en résistant aux normes communes.
      • Ils peuvent compromettre l'intégrité et la transparence du processus d'élaboration des politiques en matière d'éducation en manipulant le langage, en imposant leurs priorités ou en excluant les voix des parties prenantes.
  2. Nov 2023
    1. qui est responsabLe ?Le droit de la presse organise une responsabilité encascade, originale. Seront auteurs principaux des dé-lits de diffamation ou d’injure, en premier lieu, les di-recteurs de publications
    2. queLLes sont Les précautionsà prendre en termesd’iLLustrationdes pubLications ?
  3. May 2023
  4. Apr 2023
    1. Recommended Resource

      I recommend adding the webpage "Open Access in Australia" on Wikiwand that documents Australia's history for accepting and promoting open access and open publication in its country.

      The site contains a timeline that documents key years in which the open movement, open access, open government, and open data concepts were introduced. The year that CC Australia was established is included in the timeline.

  5. Mar 2023
    1. Roland Barthes has had published a number of works posthumously by way of his archives.

      Were they all "finished" in his archive and then put out, or were they pieced together from outlines and notes? What state of preparation were they in?

  6. Dec 2022
    1. Remember the book title and its genre. You will need to define the term "memoir," and recognize the publisher, title, and author for bibliographic information including the year of publication.

    Tags

    Annotators

  7. Oct 2022
  8. Sep 2022
    1. More important is the fact that recently some publishershave started to publish suitable publications not as solid books, but as file card collections.An example would be the Deutscher Karteiverlag [German File Card Publishing Company]from Berlin, which published a “Kartei der praktischen Medizin” [File Card of PracticalMedicine], published unter the co-authorship of doctors like R.F. Weiß, 1st edition (1930ff.).Not to be forgotten here is also: Schuster, Curt: Iconum Botanicarum Index, 1st edition,Dresden: Heinrich 1926

      As many people used slip boxes in 1930s Germany, publishers sold texts, not as typical books, but as file card collections!

      Link to: Suggestion that Scott Scheper publish his book on zettelkasten as a zettelkasten.

  9. Aug 2022
  10. Jul 2022
    1. Famously, Luswig Wittgenstein organized his thoughts this way. Also famously, he never completed his 'big book' - almost all of his books (On Certainty, Philosophical Investigations, Zettel, etc.) were compiled by his students in the years after his death.

      I've not looked directly at Wittgenstein's note collection before, but it could be an interesting historical example.


      Might be worth collecting examples of what has happened to note collections after author's lives. Some obviously have been influential in scholarship, but generally they're subsumed by the broader category of a person's "papers" which are often archived at libraries, museums, and other institutions.

      Examples: - Vincentius Placcius' collection used by his students - Niklas Luhmann's zettelkasten which is being heavily studied by Johannes F.K. Schmidt - Mortimer J. Adler - was his kept? where is it stored?

      Posthumously published note card collections - Ludwig Wittgenstein - Walter Benjamin's Arcades Project - Ronald Reagan's collection at his presidential library, though it is more of an commonplace book collection of quotes which was later published - Roland Barthes' Mourning Diary - Vladimir Nabokov's The Original of Laura - others...


      Just as note collections serve an autobiographical function, perhaps they may also serve as an intellectual autobiographical function? Wittgenstein never managed to complete his 'big book', but in some sense, doesn't his collection of note cards serve this function for those willing to explore it all?


      I'd previously suggested that Scott P. Scheper publish not only his book on note taking, but to actually publish his note cards as a stand-alone zettelkasten example to go with them. What if this sort of publishing practice were more commonplace? The modern day equivalent is more likely a person's blog or their wiki. Not enough people are publicly publishing their notes to see what this practice might look like for future generations.

  11. Apr 2022
  12. Mar 2022
    1. youtube

      YouTube constituyó una fuente de materiales audiovisuales que muchos maestros implementaron como recurso y forma de divulgación. Por otro lado, la plataforma TEAMS brindada por la SED permitió más opciones de trabajo desde sus funciones, sin embargo, es una plataforma muy pesada para cualquier dispositivo o computador y requiere de una banda ancha de internet lo que hizo fue dificultar el acceso pues meet, zoom ... son más sencillas, amables y menos pesadas. Se obligó a las instituciones a implementar Teams sin tener en cuenta las características y necesidades de la mayoría de los estudiantes de las instituciones públicas.

  13. Jan 2022
  14. Nov 2021
    1. COVID-19 Living Evidence. (2021, November 12). As of 12.11.2021, we have indexed 257,633 publications: 18,674 pre-prints 238,959 peer-reviewed publications Pre-prints: BioRxiv, MedRxiv Peer-reviewed: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO https://t.co/ytOhLG90Pi [Tweet]. @evidencelive. https://twitter.com/evidencelive/status/1459163720450519042

  15. Oct 2021
  16. Sep 2021
    1. Accepted: 19 June 2020

      I am guessing this is when it was actually published. It came out during the pandemic last year!

    Tags

    Annotators

  17. Aug 2021
  18. Jul 2021
  19. Jun 2021
    1. linking from preprints to their journal version 

      We developed a preprint-publication linker that is available on github. Details here:

      Cabanac, G., Oikonomidi, T., Boutron, I. (2021). Day-to-day discovery of preprint–publication links. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03900-7

      We daily track 572 preprints of COVID19 randomized controlled trials for the COVID-NMA project. The results of the linking and validation of preprint-publication pairs by epidemiologists are available here:

      https://www.irit.fr/~Guillaume.Cabanac/covid19-preprint-tracker

    1. we propose that the value of a well-run journal does not lie simply in providing publication technologies, but in the user community itself. Journals should be seen as a technology of social production and not as a communication technology.

      Such a powerful shift.

  20. May 2021
  21. Apr 2021
  22. Mar 2021
  23. Feb 2021
  24. Jan 2021
    1. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not be retained or copied. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers and editors must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication unless they have the authors' specific permission or are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article.

      Etika untuk Mitra Bestari

    2. The reviewer should have identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of study design and methodology The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations. The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study. The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct. The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript. The reviewer's comments to the author should be constructive and professional The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.

      Poin-poin yang mejadi tolok ukur mitra bestari dalam melakukan review

    3. to provide written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal

      Tujuan dari peninjauan sejawat (peer-review) adalah mengetahui kekuatan dan kelemahan naskah sehingga dapat dilakukan peningkatan mutu.

    4. Authorship

      semua orang yang berkontribusi secara substansial terhadap proses perencanaan, pengumpulan data, interpretasi hasil maupun penulisan dan merevisi naskah secara kritis dan menyetujui manuskrip versi akhir dan setuju untuk bertanggung jawab atas semua aspek pekerjaan. Setiap orang yang memenuhi kriteria pertama harus diizinkan berpartisipasi dalam penyusunan dan persetujuan manuskrip versi final (ICMJE 2017). Penulis pertama haruslah seseorang yang berkontribusi paling banyak.

      https://www.ease.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/doi.10.20316.ESE_.2018.44.e1.in_.pdf

    5. Animal experiments should require full compliance with local, national, ethical, and regulatory principles, and local licensing arrangements

      Demikian juga dengan penggunaan hewan sebayak objek kajian, harus mengikuti standar etika yang berlaku (Helsinki).

    6. Journals should have explicit policies as to whether these review board approvals must be documented by the authors, or simply attested to in their cover letter, and how they should be described in the manuscript itself

      Seminimal mungkin, penulis harus menyampaikan keputusan etik dari komisi etik dan lebih ideal lagi jika menyertakan surat keputusan bebas etiknya.

    7. For those investigators who do not have access to formal ethics review committees, the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki should be followed

      Jika tidak memungkinkan untuk diperoleh hasil review etik, penulis seharusnya secara explisit menjelaskan apakah pelaksanaan kajian sesuai dengan Deklarasi Helsinki atau mereka memiliki pandangan lain.

    8. Documented review and approval from a formally constituted review board (Institutional Review Board or Ethics committee) should be required for all studies involving people, medical records, and human tissues

      Penulis harus menyertakan keterangan bebas review yang diterbitkan oleh komisi etik penelitian kesehatan.

    9. Fabrication, falsification, concealment, deceptive reporting, or misrepresentation of data constitute scientific misconduct

      Untuk mencapai kualitas terbaik pada ilmu pengetahuan yang diterbitkan, kajian harus terbebas dari permasalahan etika tersebut

  25. Dec 2020
    1. Stuaert Rtchie [@StuartJRitchie] (2020) This encapsulates the problem nicely. Sure, there’s a paper. But actually read it & what do you find? p-values mostly juuuust under .05 (a red flag) and a sample size that’s FAR less than “25m”. If you think this is in any way compelling evidence, you’ve totally been sold a pup. Twitter. Retrieved from:https://twitter.com/StuartJRitchie/status/1305963050302877697

    1. Following the model of open-source software, we can enter our ideas and expressions into public discourse

      This also isn't a well-aligned argument. Articles published in a for-profit journal are entered into the public discourse (although obviously not into the public domain). Unless public means "without cost", which I don't think it does.

      We might want to broaden this to include open-access, which is specific to publication models.

  26. Nov 2020
  27. Oct 2020
  28. Sep 2020
  29. Aug 2020
    1. If a prominent magazine like The Lancet is publishing such rubbish, who is to say smaller and less well financed magazines aren’t doing the same on a langer scale?

  30. Jul 2020
    1. "that text has been removed from the official version on the Apache site." This itself is also not good. If you post "official" records but then quietly edit them over time, I have no choice but to assume bad faith in all the records I'm shown by you. Why should I believe anything Apache board members claim was "minuted" but which in fact it turns out they might have just edited into their records days, weeks or years later? One of the things I particularly watch for in modern news media (where no physical artefact captures whatever "mistakes" are published as once happened with newspapers) is whether when they inevitably correct a mistake they _acknowledge_ that or they instead just silently change things.
  31. Jun 2020
  32. May 2020
  33. Apr 2020
  34. Dec 2019
    1. By the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs, * * * I rushed out of the room. Page 43

      This epigram to the frontispiece of the 1831 edition quotes from Book I, chapter 4, p. 43 of the original print edition, the scene in which the Creature comes alive in Victor's laboratory. The frontispiece depicts the Creature's birth and was engraved for the 1831 edition by William Chevalier, adapting a painted illustration by Theodor von Holst. This picture appears on our interface.

    2. LONDON: HENRY COLBURN AND RICHARD BENTLEY

      Unlike the three-volume 1818 edition, the 1831 revision was published in a single volume (with chapter renumbering and extensive revision) in Colburn and Bentley's "Standard Novels" series. Outside London, the novel was published as a standalone volume--not a part of the London-based "Standard Novels" series--in Edinburgh and Dublin.

    3. The day of my departure at length arrived Page 31.

      This epigram appears underneath an illustration on the novel's first 1831 title page, facing the frontispiece; it was also engraved by William Chevalier after a painting by Theodor von Holst, Colburn and Bentley's illustrators for the Standard Novel Series. The epigram refers readers to chapter 3, page 31, in which Victor first departs the family home to attend the University of Ingolstadt--and to study there the sciences that will motivate him to create the Creature. The illustration shows Elizabeth Lavenza standing in the doorway of their home, smiling, as Victor steps into the street.

    4. the preface. As far as I can recollect, it was entirely written by him.

      The 1818 edition of Frankenstein was published anonymously, and early readers and reviewers often attributed it to Percy Shelley, not Mary. According to Mary in 1831 (and subsequent scholarship), Percy did largely write the 1818 "Preface," and it is now estimated by Charles Robinson that Percy contributed between 4000 and 5000 words to Mary's 72,000 word manuscript. See Robinson, ed., The Original Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus, by Mary Shelley (with Percy Shelley) [New York: VIntage Classics, 2009].

    5. illustrated

      The 1831 edition has two illustrations, the frontispiece and the picture on the first title page, crafted by T. Holst and W. Chevalier, engravers for Coburn's and Bentley's Standard Novels series.

    6. FRANKENSTEIN, by MARY W. SHELLEY.

      The first title page in the 1831 edition lists only a short version of the original title--Frankenstein--and Mary Shelley's name as author. A second title page following this one gives the original full title and identifies Mary only as "The Author of The Last Man, Perkin Warbeck, &tc. &c." This format was typical of the book series in which the 1831 edition of the novel appeared: Henry Colburn's and Richard Bentley's "Standard Novels." All books in the series have well-illustrated frontispieces and first title pages, followed by a more detailed title page without illustrations. It was this publishing format that launched Frankenstein as a widely reprinted popular novel.

    1. FRANKENSTEIN: or, THE MODERN PROMETHEUS. by MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT SHELLEY. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. I. A NEW EDITION. LONDON: PRINTED FOR G. AND W. B. WHITTAKER, AVE-MARIA-LANE. 1823.

      The 1823 edition's title page differs almost entirely from the 1818 original title page. The title is the same, but for the first time the 1823 edition lists Mary Shelley as the novel's author. (Though it does not list Wiliam Godwin, her father, as the editor responsible for the minor revisions in this edition.) The page also shows that the 1823 edition appears in two volumes, not three as in 1818. The new publisher for the novel is G. and W.B. Whittaker.

    2. FRANKENSTEIN: or, THE MODERN PROMETHEUS. LONDON PRINTED BY THOMAS DAVISON, WHITEFRIARS.

      As it does with the 1818 edition, this title appears on its own page. It is followed by a page listing the printer Thomas Davison, and then by the full title page.

  35. Nov 2019
  36. Sep 2019
  37. Jul 2019
    1. I am a researcher working on topics related to subjective well-being (sometimes also called happiness).

      I should preface by saying that I have relatively modest training in statistics, and the arguments put forth in this paper are quite out of my depth. For example, I have not heard of things like first order stochastic dominance before reading this paper. I hope that by being open about things that I might be somewhat ignorant, this can be a path for me to develop a deeper understanding of the concerns raised in the paper.

      I think (which could well be wrong) the paper is saying that in an ordinal measure like happiness, groups and individuals differ in their 'standard' in reporting happiness (e.g., what it takes to push my happiness from 0 to 1 is different from what pushes your happiness from 0 to 1). This makes comparing 'latent' (or true level of) happiness across groups difficult, if not impossible.

      Put differently, if I report a 1 and you report a 0, I cannot be certain that I am happier than you. It could be the case that my standard for reporting a 1 is lower than you. The authors showed that by changing this standard around, inferences about 'true' happiness would change.

      I think this is an important point. I think happiness researchers have grappled with this to some degree (from a more abstract perspective; instead of the more statistical/mathematical perspective). E.g., A hypothesis about how people report life satisfaction is that they compare their life to an ideal life (here, the ideal life sets the standard; i.e., two people with the exact same life can have different levels of life satisfaction because they have different ideas about ideal life). Related research in social comparison could be interpreted as moving the standard for happiness higher (instead of lowering 'true' happiness). In contrast, things like gratitude may lead to higher happiness ratings because it lowers happiness standard (instead of increasing 'true' happiness). The set point hypothesis can be interpreted as 1) people fully adapting their 'true' happiness to baseline levels after experiencing major life events or 2) people create a new happiness standard after experiencing a major life event.

      This paper prompts me to think harder about happiness measures. It could well be the case that the standard people set for their happiness level (a cognitive process?) may be just as important as 'true' happiness itself.

  38. Apr 2019
  39. Mar 2019
    1. To investigate whether and how user data are shared by top rated medicines related mobile applications (apps) and to characterise privacy risks to app users, both clinicians and consumers.

      "24 of 821 apps identified by an app store crawling program. Included apps pertained to medicines information, dispensing, administration, prescribing, or use, and were interactive."

  40. Jan 2019
    1. This information was not explicitly stated in either article, but the sample and community description makes it clear that the participants of these studies are the same people, though the sample sizes differ slightly (ns = 85 and 86). However, this redundancy did not produce any analysis problems because the correlation matrix in the Grigorenko et al. (2001) article was not positive definite.

      The duplication of data across articles and the non-positive definite dataset have never been fully explained. In light of Sternberg's history of self-plagiarism (see link below), this is troubling.

      https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-unbearable-heaviness-of-text-recycling-12389fe9850d

  41. Mar 2018
    1. The serendipity of networked practice together with a heightened attention to the importance of protecting the place of human interaction in education resulted in many conference presentations and publications

      Reflective practice, research, publication

  42. Dec 2017
  43. Oct 2017
  44. Sep 2017
    1. The problems here stem from a lack of comprehensiveness, interoperability, and critical mass uptake as the de facto platform for PPPR. The result of this is a mess of different platforms having different types of commentary on different articles, or sometimes the same ones, none of which can be viewed easily in a single, standardised way. That doesn’t seem very efficient.

      This is really key.

  45. Apr 2017
    1. Samson-Steinbach Delphine, Legeai Fabrice, Karsenty Emmanuelle et al. (2003) GénoPlante-Info (GPI): a collection of databases and bioinformatics resources for plant genomics. Nucleic Acids Res., 31, 179–182.

      Lien vers l'article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC165507/

      (open access)

  46. Feb 2017
    1. Pivotal roles are played by three enzymes, (phospho-fructokinase (PFK), pyruvate kinase (PK) and phosphofructoki-nase/fructose-2,6-bisphosphatase (PFKFB)) through their inhibi-tion or activation by three reaction intermediates (fructose-1,6-bisphosphate (F16BP), fructose-2,6-bisphosphate (F26BP), andphosphoenolpyruvate (PEP)) in glycolysis. These enzymes havemultiple isoforms (PFKL/M/P, PKM1/M2/L/R and PFKFB1-4)which are subjected to contrasting allosteric regulations [9–11].Each isoform, therefore, affects the glycolytic activity in a distinctmanner.All three isoforms of PFK are activated by F6P and F26BP [12],but only PFKM and PFKL are activated by F16BP [13–15].PFKFB is a bifunctional enzyme whose kinase and bisphosphatasedomains catalyze the formation and hydrolysis reaction of F26BP,respectively [9,16]. Isozymes of PFKFB differ in their kinase andphosphatase activities as well as in their sensitivity to feedbackinhibition by phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) [17–19]. Thus, eachisozyme of PFKFB has a profoundly distinct capacity inmodulating PFK activity. Pyruvate kinase (PK) in mammaliansystems is encoded by two genes that can produce two isoformseach. Except for the PKM1 isoform, the other three isoformsof PK, PKM2, PKL and PKR, are activated by F16BP to varyingextents [11]. The M2 isoform of PK, in addition to activation byF16BP, is also under the control of a host of allosteric modulatorsincluding serine, succinylaminoimidazolecarboxamide ribose-5-phosphate (SAICAR) and phenylalanine among others [

      Need a figure presenting the regulation network.

  47. Jan 2017
    1. Belinda Cleary For Daily Mail Australia

      Who is this author? Does she have an area of expertise that's related to this story? How would you find out? What is this source and what are its biases? How would you find out?

  48. Aug 2016
    1. Page XVIII

      Borgman notes that no social framework exist for data that is comparable to this framework that exist for analysis. CF. Kitchen 2014 who argues that pre-big data, we privileged analysis over data to the point that we threw away the data after words . This is what creates the holes in our archives.

      He wonders capabilities [of the data management] must be compared to the remarkably stable scholarly communication system in which they exist. The reward system continues to be based on publishing journal articles, books, and conference papers. Peer-reviewed legitimizes scholarly work. Competition and cooperation are carefully balanced. The means by which scholarly publishing occurs is an unstable state, but the basic functions remained relatively unchanged. while capturing and managing the "data deluge" is a major driver of the scholarly infrastructure developments, no Showshow same framework for data exist that is comparable to that for publishing.

  49. Jun 2016
    1. T he Future of Publications in the Humanities

      Fuchs, Milena Žic. 2014. “The Future of Publications in the Humanities: Possible Impacts of Research Assessment.” In New Publication Cultures in the Humanities: Exploring the Paradigm Shift, edited by Péter Dávidházi, 147–71. Amsterdam University Press. http://books.google.ca/books/about/New_Publication_Cultures_in_the_Humaniti.html?hl=&id=4ffcoAEACAAJ.

  50. Apr 2016
    1. Does peer review work? Is peer review broken? The vast majority of authors believe it improves their final work, and since it’s evolving from this solid base, it’s clearly not broken. But before we can have a useful discussion about its purpose and effectiveness, we need to agree on which approach to peer review we’re talking about, then whether our expectations of it are reasonable and accurate.
    2. Here are some variables around peer-review we have to understand before we know what kind of peer review we’re actually talking about: Is it blinded? If it is blinded, is it single-blinded or double-blinded? Is there statistical or methodological review in addition to external peer-review? Are the peer reviewers truly experts in the field or a more general assemblage of individuals? What are the promises and goals of the peer review process? What type of disclosure of financial or other potential competing interests is made? Are reviewers aware of these? Is there a senior editor of some sort involved along with outside peer reviewers? Is the peer-review “inherited” from another body, such as a committee or a preceding journal process (e.g., in “cascading” title situations or when expert panels have been involved)? Are there two tiers of peer review within the same journal’s practices? Is the peer-review done at the article level or at the corpus level (as happens with some supplements)? Is plagiarism-detection software used as part of the process? Are figures checked for manipulation? Is the peer reviewer graded by a senior editor as part of an internal evaluation and improvement process?
  51. Feb 2016
    1. 44-45 Ingelfinger rule: won't publish articles that have been presented, discussed with reporters, or published in any form elsewhere--including data. Once a paper is under consideration and production, it can't be discussed with reporters.

      This clearly harms science in the interest of journals.

  52. Jul 2015
    1. Moving Museum Catalogues Online: An Interim Report from the Getty Foundation"The Online Scholarly Catalogue Initiative *2012 interim report from the Getty Foundation regarding their activities moving towards digital publishing

      • does this deal with issues of fair use, permissions, and copyright?
  53. May 2015
    1. Author and peer reviewer anonymity haven’t been shown to have an overall benefit, and they may cause harm. Part of the potential for harm is if journals act as though it’s a sufficiently effective mechanism to prevent bias.
    2. Peer reviewers were more likely to substantiate the points they made (9, 14, 16, 17) when they knew they would be named. They were especially likely to provide extra substantiation if they were recommending an article be rejected, and they knew their report would be published if the article was accepted anyway (9, 15).