On February, 2nd, 2006, The Press Office at the University of Leeds released an account of my first article on recollective confabulation. It was an accidental stroke of genius. Thanks to it being Groundhog Day, the world’s press had even more of an excuse to print an account of the ‘world’s first study’ of a case
Nous recrutons! Suite à l’obtention d’une subvention de la Région Bourgogne, nous offrons: une place en thèse et un post doctorat d’un an au LEAD (UMR CNRS 5022), Dijon . Thèse. La thèse débutera en Septembre 2014, encadrée par Céline Souchay (CR1, HDR) et Chris Moulin (MCF Chaire d’excellence). Le sujet porte sur l’utilisation d’un nouvel
Man, I hate a Type 1 error. Don’t we all? You can read a sensible account of the Bonferroni correction on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonferroni_correction. This is not a sensible account. The exotic name for such an elegant and simple idea comes from Carlo Emilio Bonferroni, an Italian mathmetician. He did not devise the correction, apparently, though
I then was bored with Reviewer B’s somewhat serious and earnest recommendations, and thought that giving the guidance of a bad reviewer may illustrate my feelings a little more. So, Reviewer B, good guy. Reviewer C, bad guy. (Just so I’m clear.) How to write a review, by anonymous reviewer C. Your default position
With my Reviewer B badges, I wanted to start a little positive reviewing club, where people sign up to certain standards. I tried to think up the 10 commandments for reviewing. 1. Thou shalt decline to review those articles where you know what your recommendation will be based on the author names only. 2.
Q. What would a six-year old make of how Academics are prone to examine each other’s research metrics? A. One big game of Top trumps. I’ve been playing Top Trumps a lot with my son lately, and it got me thinking about the assessment of research, particularly the REF. Here I sketch