Comments for Healthy Algorithms

Comment on Understanding the Elsevier Boycott by Henry Cohn

Henry Cohn — Fri, 18 May 2012 00:19:03 +0000

I don’t see how moving from journals to conferences addresses the underlying problems. It introduces a ton of new issues: rushed peer review, poor writing due to deadline pressures, pressure towards publishing in small, incremental pieces, artificial timing issues because submissions can be made only at certain times of year (do you publish now in a lower-ranked conference or wait for a better one?), inability to publish if you aren’t able to attend the conference in person, etc. Meanwhile, I don’t see it solving any of the old problems.

Plus the ACM is determined to turn itself into the professional-society equivalent of Elsevier (I’m serious about this – their copyright and author’s rights policies are actually worse than Elsevier’s by now, although of course that’s not the only thing wrong with Elsevier).

Comment on Understanding the Elsevier Boycott by Abraham Flaxman

Abraham Flaxman — Thu, 17 May 2012 23:54:47 +0000

Thanks David. I saw that sentence when I was googling, but I didn’t read the article until you suggested it. I strongly support the sentiment that the article closes with “it is the intrinsic merit of the work, and not the title of the journal in which an author’s work is published, that should be considered in making funding decisions.” But perhaps it is naive to assume what should be considered is what _will be_ considered.

In thinking about this over the last few weeks, I’ve started to wonder if the move in Computer Science away from Journal publications and towards Conference Proceedings might actually be a good thing. Moshe Vardi and Lance Fortnow argued the opposite in a series of provocative viewpoints a few years ago (http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2009/5/24632-conferences-vs-journals-in-computing-research/fulltext http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2009/8/34492-viewpoint-time-for-computer-science-to-grow-up/fulltext), and, since I am no longer in a department that understands that certain conference papers should be respected as much or more than certain journal publications, I have been sympathetic to their position. But it could be time for a radical reassessment. Maybe the computer scientists have been doing it right.

Comment on Understanding the Elsevier Boycott by David Ketcheson

David Ketcheson — Sat, 05 May 2012 17:43:29 +0000

I think many boycotters, like myself, don’t really expect Elsevier to change. I agree with this article: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/02/21/its-not-academic-how-publishers-are-squelching-science-communication/

which says about the boycott

“It’s sometimes been described as a petition, but isn’t trying to persuade Elsevier to do something. It’s a declaration of independence.”

For me, there are better places to publish. I boycott Elsevier not to try to persuade them to change, but simply to “vote” for better publishing models in the most effective way I can — with my papers and my referee time.

Comment on MCMC in Python: A random effects logistic regression example by MCMC in Python: Bayesian meta-analysis example | Healthy Algorithms

MCMC in Python: Bayesian meta-analysis example | Healthy Algorithms — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:12:23 +0000

[...] slow progress on my plan to to go through the examples from the OpenBUGS webpage and port them to PyMC, I offer you now Blockers, a random effects meta-analysis of clinical [...]

Comment on Understanding the Elsevier Boycott by Abraham Flaxman

Abraham Flaxman — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:33:38 +0000

Thanks, Henry. It seems to me that you do lay out some demands in your article, although I recognize the challenge of articulating them precisely, not to mention getting the thousands of boycott participants to agree to them.

If this movement makes big, big changes in the way scientific publishing is done, don’t forget about me and my health science buddies. The stakes are high my new field.

Comment on Understanding the Elsevier Boycott by Henry Cohn

Henry Cohn — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 02:02:27 +0000

There are no formal demands, since it would be next to impossible to formulate them clearly and appropriately. For example, it’s not clear how to set conditions for how Elsevier could show that they have fixed their ethical or peer review problems, and the boycotters can’t micromanage Elsevier’s prices (especially given how non-transparent bundling makes everything). Most of the obvious demands one could make are either woefully insufficient or really implausible. Figuring out the right approach is something the community will have to do with Elsevier, rather than dictate in advance. It should also be a matter of really fixing things at a fundamental level, rather than just improving barely enough to shift into the “offensive, but not quite boycott-worthy” category.

I hope Elsevier does address the issues behind the boycott and manages to regain the trust of the community. I believe this should involve making big changes, finding ways to make binding commitments rather than relying on trust, and demonstrating dramatic progress over time. Ultimately, it’s up to them to figure out how to redeem themselves.

By the way, you might also be interested in an article Doug Arnold and I wrote about the boycott (http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1351). It lays out the case for the boycott as clearly as we could.

Comment on MCMC in Python: A random effects logistic regression example by АД по пятницам, кружок 9, итоги « Pokrovka11's Blog

АД по пятницам, кружок 9, итоги « Pokrovka11's Blog — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:42:25 +0000

[...] плюшек, входящих в spyder 2. Взаимодействие pandas и pymc 3. Random effects logit, pymc Like this:НравитсяБудьте первым, кому понравился этот [...]

Comment on PyMC+Pandas: Poisson Regression Example by АД по пятницам, кружок 9, итоги « Pokrovka11's Blog

АД по пятницам, кружок 9, итоги « Pokrovka11's Blog — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:33:57 +0000

[...] 1. Список плюшек, входящих в spyder 2. Взаимодействие pandas и pymc Like this:НравитсяБудьте первым, кому понравился этот [...]

Comment on MCMC in Python: A random effects logistic regression example by phewson

phewson — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:27:51 +0000

Very nice! Thanks

Comment on Bitcoin and Anonymity by Abraham Flaxman

Abraham Flaxman — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:40:40 +0000

More material on bitcoin:
Bitter to Better — How to Make Bitcoin a Better Currency http://crypto.stanford.edu/~xb/fc12/bitcoin.pdf

Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System – http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Bitcoin: A Technical Introduction – http://vimeo.com/27177893