Each panel is made of a soft fabric and sewn onto a large, 12’x 12′ piece of ivory linen fabric.

Block #621

Media Maker Spaces is an exploration for them experience a creating, editing, storing. publishing and streaming media to their peers and to their immediate context.

Festivals and rituals - Living archives of the memories

review and critique each other’s work.

Brianna:I had a negative experience where, in my master’s, my supervisor encouraged me to submit one of my papers to a journal for publication. I just submitted the paper to a journal as a course paper without making any changes, not even changing the title page. The journal told me to re-submit with revisions, but I thought thatit was a rejection, and I stopped the process—it was intimidating. I thought being involved in a journal where I know some of the people and they won’t just get an online e-mail response from editors would be helpful

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.

protected platform whereby many expert reviewers could read and comment on submissions, as well as on fellow reviewers’ comments

intelligent crowd reviewing

The Effects of the Built Environment on Child Friendliness and Obesity: Analysis on Auburn Ave

Conclusion

Description of Ponce City Market

Description of Krog Street Market

Demographics of Ponce de Leon Area

Demographics of Krog Street Area

 (“725 Ponce” 2015)

History of Ponce City Market

History of Krog Street Market

Introduction

Thesis: The rhetoric of the built environment of Atlanta shows that racial discrimination, white flight, car dominated transportation network, and segregation by race and class have caused Atlanta to have the highest income inequality ratio in the country, and the same factors that led to severe income inequality in Atlanta are perpetuating the problem today.

Built Environment Analysis (DRAFT)

As a result of a long history of white flight and racial discrimination, Atlanta’s transportation network is predominately designed for travel by car. Consistent public transportation is present downtown and in the immediately surrounding areas. Evidence:

Cost of living map and MARTA map side by side

The neighborhood one grows up in has been shown to impact their chances for upward economic mobility, therefore gentrification and neighborhoods segregated by class perpetuate income inequality.

The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940” by Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren “All Cities Are Not Created Unequal” by Alan Berube

history of white flight

While there is some public transportation for people living further away from the center of the city, the current accommodations are insufficient for people without cars.

The trend of Atlanta’s middle and upper classes moving out to the suburbs is shifting, and these groups are beginning to move back into the city. Therefore, neighborhoods are being gentrified to meet the growing demand.

Low-income residents that have settled close to the city, along public transportation routes, are having to move further out because the gentrification of neighborhoods raises the cost of housing.

The quality and quantity of public transportation decreases as you move further away from the center of the city. Consequently, those living in poverty who have relocated further away from the city are in a worse situation because they do not have the same amenities available to them.

“Atlanta: Unsafe at any Speed: Transit Fatality Raises Issues of Race, Poverty and Transportation Justice” by Laurel Paget-Seekins “Health Impact Assessment of the Atlanta Beltline” by Catherine Ross

“Using Vehicle Value as a Proxy for Income: A Case Study on Atlanta’s I-85 HOT Lane” by Sara Khoeini and Randall Guensler “Atlanta: Unsafe at any Speed: Transit Fatality Raises Issues of Race, Poverty and Transportation Justice” by Laurel Paget-Seekins “The Human Scale” by Andreas Mol Dalsgaard

Photo of bench in Little Five Points

“Atlanta: Unsafe at any Speed: Transit Fatality Raises Issues of Race, Poverty and Transportation Justice” by Laurel Paget-Seekins “How Cities Use Design to Drive Homeless People Away” by Robert Rosenberger

“CHANGING BOHEMIA Little Five Points, a Haven of Counterculture, Faces Gentrification and Dissension” by Melissa Turner “Health Impact Assessment of the Atlanta Beltline” by Catherine Ross

“Atlanta: Unsafe at any Speed: Transit Fatality Raises Issues of Race, Poverty and Transportation Justice” by Laurel Paget-Seekins “The Human Scale” by Andreas Mol Dalsgaard

Présidentielles et bulles de filtres: le référencement politique de Facebook passé au crible

ittle direct indication that the Trump administration or congressional leaders known for attacking scientific research on climate change and human health are looking to exploit reproducibility campaigns as a political opportunity.

Eve Marder, a neurobiologist at Brandeis University and a deputy editor at eLife, says that around one third of reviewers under her purview sign their reviews.

If Kriegeskorte is invited by a journal to write a review, first he decides whether he’s interested enough to review it. If so, he checks whether there’s a preprint available—basically a final draft of the manuscript posted publicly online on one of several preprint servers like arxiv and biorxiv. This is crucial. Writing about a manuscript that he’s received in confidence from a journal editor would break confidentiality—talking about a paper before the authors are ready. If there’s a preprint, great. He reviews the paper, posts to his blog, and also sends the review to the journal editor.

The tweet linked to the blog of a neuroscientist named Niko Kriegeskorte, a cognitive neuroscientist at the Medical Research Council in the UK who, since December 2015, has performed all of his peer review openly.

object you are photographing b

I hope to show with this tutorial, however, that the Dino-Lite Premier AM-311S has the potential to create useful models at an affordable price.

capture images for processing

The struggle between Whewell and Lubbock represented two distinct visions of what a referee might be. Whewell was the authoritative generalist, glancing down on the landscape of knowledge. He was unconcerned with — and probably not in a position to critique — the details. Such referees were, according to the Royal Society's president, “Elevated by their character and reputation above the influence of personal feelings of rivalry or petty jealousy”4. Lubbock was a younger specialist, Airy's equal. This allowed him to take a fine-tooth comb to Airy's arguments; it also put him in the position of reviewing a direct competitor.

by introducing editorial management software systems.

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 [

Examples of bad peer review and why it is damaging to researchers

Clarity on what qualifies as a respected preprint

No Bias, No Merit: The Case against Blind Submission

Nevertheless, there were a few who questioned that definition of fairness and challenged the assumption that it was wrong for reviewers to take institutional affiliation and history into consider- ation. "We consider a result from a scientist who has never before been wrong much more seriously than a similar report from a scientist who has never before been right. . . . It is neither unnatural nor wrong that the work of scientists who have achieved eminence through a long record of important and suc- cessful research is accepted with fewer reservations than the work of less eminent scientists" (196). "A reviewer may be justified in assuming at the outset that [well-known] people know what they are do- ing" (211). "Those of us who publish establish some kind of track record. If our papers stand the test of time . . . it can be expected that we have acquired expertise in scientific methodology" (244). (This last respondent is a woman and a Nobel laureate.)

A similar point is made by some of the participants in a discussion of peer review published in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences: An International Journal of Current Research and Theory with Open Peer Commentary (5 [1982]: 187-255). The occasion was the report of research conducted by D. P. Peters and S. J. Ceci. Peters and Ceci had taken twelve articles published in twelve different journals, altered the titles, substituted for the names of the authors fictitious names identified as researchers at institu- tions no one had ever heard of (because they were, made up), and resubmitted the articles to the jour- nals that had originally accepted them. Three of the articles were recognized as resubmissions, and of the remaining nine eight were rejected. The response to these results ranged from horror ("It puts at risk the whole conceptual framework within which we are accustomed to make observations and con- struct theories" [245]) to "so what else is new."

. Predict- ably, Schaefer's statement provoked a lively exchange in which the lines of battle were firmly, and, as I will argue, narrowly, drawn. On the one hand those who agreed with Schaefer feared that a policy of anonymous review would involve a surrender "to the spurious notions about objectivity and absolute value that . . . scientists and social scientists banter about"; on the other hand those whose primary concern was with the fairness of the procedure believed that "[jiustice should be blind" ("Correspon- dence" 4). Each side concedes the force of the opposing argument-the proponents of anonymous re- view admit that impersonality brings its dangers, and the defenders of the status quo acknowledge that it is important to prevent "extraneous considerations" from interfering with the identification of true merit (5)

ouble-blind) peer review became an established component of thepost-war scientific bureaucracy (Chubin & Hackett, 1990,pp. 19 –24)

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.

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?

White (1984, cited by Vaughan, 1991) reported on a study conducted at California State University in which two essays were tucked into a huge sample of essays and read a year apart by the same readers using a 6-point scale. The reading a year later produced scores that were identical to the first in only 20 per cent of the cases. The scores differed by one point or less in 58 per cent of cases and 2 points or less in 83 per cent of the cases. As White points out, a 1-point difference is generally considered unproblematic, but on a 6-point scale the difference between a 3 and a 4 is the difference between a pass and a fail. Obviously, then, changes in examiner severity/leniency over-time have implications for maintaining standards, and must be monitored. Research has been conducted into variations in examiner severity/leniency during the marking of a particular allocation of scripts, a marking period, and over more extended periods of time.

According to Stemler, consistency estimates of interrater reliability assume that it is not necessary for judges to share a common meaning of the rating scale, so long as each judge is consistent in their classifications.

(2004) notes that most research papers describe interrater reliability as though it is a single, universal concept. He argues this practice is imprecise and potentially misleading. The specific type of interrater reliability being discussed should be indicated. He categorises the most common statistical methods for reporting interrater reliability into one of three classes: consensus estimates; consistency estimates; and measurement estimates.

in the latter both the wide differential in manuscript rejection rates and the high correlation between refereerecommendations and editorial decisions suggests that reviewers and editors agree more on acceptance than on rejection.

In the former there is also much more agreement on rejectionthan acceptance

. Referees ofgrant proposals agree much more about what is unworthy of support than about what does have scientific value. In

Marsh, H. W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H. D., & O’Mara, A. (2009). Gender effects in the peerreviews of grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevelapproaches.Review of Educational Research, 79, 1290–1326

One mid-career scientist told a story of how he and others in his lab counteractedan abuse of power by his mentor, a senior scientist, while he was in training. Hismentor received a manuscript to review that was authored by a ‘‘quasi-competitor.’’It presented results of experiments similar to those that were going on in thementor’s lab. The scientist continued, ‘‘That paper ... basically would have beat usto the punch. They would have published these results before us, and they wouldhave gotten credit, and not us. And my mentor, God bless him, sat on the paper.’’The mentor not only delayed writing the review but asked someone working in thelab to write it (a move of questionable ethicality in itself). That lab person and ourrespondent decided, in response, to stall their own work, so that their lab would nothave an unfair advantage over the group who submitted the paper for review. In theend, the original group got credit for the findings, while the respondent’s lab wasalso able to publish their slightly different findings. He ended his story with,‘‘Sometimes you’re in an awkward position, and you try to do the best thing you canunder the circumstances, within your own internal ethical clock or whatever. Andsometimes it’s ugly and it’s imperfect, but it’s the only thing you can do. If we hadgone to the mentor and voiced this objection, our careers would have been over. Ifwe had approached the journal—God forbid, forget it.’’ The speaker qualified thisstory by saying that it made him sound much more ethical than he actually is.

The focus-group discussions showed, however, that scientists see peer review asaffording a unique, even protected opportunity for competitors to take advantage ofthem. In this sense, competition infects the peer review process, not only throughscientists’ competition with other applicants, but also through scientists’ distrust ofthe reviewers themselves, as competitors. The following exchange among mid-career discussants shows their sense of vulnerability

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.’

As I have mentioned in previous posts, several platforms have appeared recently that could take on this role of third-party reviewer. I could imagine at least: libreapp.org, peerevaluation.org, pubpeer.com, and publons.com. Pandelis Perakakis mentioned several others as well: http://thomas.arildsen.org/2013/08/01/open-review-of-scientific-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-9.

Below I list a few advantages and drawbacks of anonymity where I assume that a drawback of anonymous review is an advantage of identified review and vice versa. Drawbacks Reviewers do not get credit for their work. They cannot, for example, reference particular reviews in their CVs as they can with publications. It is relatively “easy” for a reviewer to provide unnecessarily blunt or harsh critique. It is difficult to guess if the reviewer has any conflict of interest with the authors by being, for example, a competing researcher interested in stalling the paper’s publication. Advantages Reviewers do not have to fear “payback” for an unfavourable review that is perceived as unfair by the authors of the work. Some (perhaps especially “high-profile” senior faculty members) reviewers might find it difficult to find the time to provide as thorough a review as they would ideally like to, yet would still like to contribute and can perhaps provide valuable experienced insight. They can do so without putting their reputation on the line.

With most journals, if I submit a paper that is rejected, that information is private and I can re-submit elsewhere. In open review, with a negative review one can publicly lose face as well as lose the possibility of re-submitting the paper. Won’t this be a significant disincentive to submit? This is precisely what we are trying to change. Currently, scientists can submit a paper numerous times, receive numerous negative reviews and ultimately publish their paper somewhere else after having “passed” peer review. If scientists prefer this system then science is in a dangerous place. By choosing this model, we as scientists are basically saying we prefer nice neat stories that no one will criticize. This is silly though because science, more often than not, is not neat and perfect. The Winnower believes that transparency in publishing is of the utmost importance. Going from a closed anonymous system to an open system will be hard for many scientists but I believe that it is the right thing to do if we care about the truth.

PLOS Labs is working on establishing structured reviews and we have talked with them about this.

It should be noted that papers will always be open for review so that a paper can accumulate reviews throughout its lifetime.

‘review of the reviews’ (with reviewers weighing in on the issues raised by others),

It would avoid any possible awkwardness on either side, and if the discussion were constructive, then both author and commenter would profit from the outcome.

Put simply, various stakeholders seem to have different perspectives on how research assessment works currently and how it should work in the future. In order to move forward, we must first identify and then address a number of misunderstandings.

Broockman has ideas about how to reform things. He thinks so-called “post-publication peer review” — a system which, to oversimplify a bit, makes it easier to evaluate the strength of previously published findings — has promise.

The key here is to not just democratize content sharing (the web has done that already) but to democratize and diversify reputation and trustworthiness. And to disrupt the monopoly academia has had on knowledge.

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.

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).

Alternatively, Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng who are the founders of Coursera, a Stanford MOOC startup, have decided to use peer evaluation to assess writing. Koller and Ng (2012) specifically used the term “calibrated peer review” to refer to a method of peer review distinct from an application developed by UCLA with National Science Foundation funding called Calibrated Peer Review™ (CPR). For Koller and Ng, “calibrated peer review” is a specific form of peer review in which students are trained on a particular scoring rubric for an assignment using practice essays before they begin the peer review process.