This popped up on my Twitter timeline this morning:
Go read the linked post in all it's "glory".
What an arse.
I retweeted the above and got the following response:
Interesting thought. What's to stop PPPR* degenerating into this kind of crap? I get that most scientists are decent people and wouldn't do this, but...
* Post-publication peer review if you're wondering.
Yesterday on the twits there was a suggestion that teachers (of the K-12 kind) use #icanhazpdf and/or SciHub to obtain paywalled papers. Even before contacting the authors directly.*
No. Just. No.
#icanhazpdf and SciHub are illegal.** Those pushing their use know this, and it's their choice if they want to use those venues. But do most K-12 teachers know about the legal issues? I doubt it.
Using others who may not know better to forward your agenda - no matter how noble an agenda it is - is reprehensible.
And before you go on and on about how the public should have free access, US taxpayer dollars etc., stop. That's not what this post is about. It's about the kind of extreme evangelism that uses others as cannon fodder. The kind that is more likely to hurt your agenda than help it. The kind that's repugnant.
* Some have at least recanted this position, so I won't name and shame.
** At least here in the US.
Deep. Very deep. Too deep for a Wednesday.
I found at least some of Michael Eisen's responses to Andrew Kern's tweets. Worth reading (click on the tweets below)-
It's worth looking at PLoS's Core Principles. I'm not seeing anything there they've violated by acting like... a business. And before you leap on Principle 6, "fair price" is generally interpreted as "what the market will bear". PLoS doesn't seem to be hurting for submissions.
NIGMS has a postdoc training program titled "Intramural NIGMS Postdoctoral Research Associate (PRAT) Program". This amuses me no end. Someone on this grant is a PRAT.
This had me wondering on the twits: Perhaps they should have a program called "Graduate In Training (GIT) Program".
Then @michaelhoffman suggested:
One could then progress from GIT to PRAT to ARSE...
Pretty much the system we currently have described in acronyms.
DrugMonkey recently kicked off a blog meme asking:
The question is, from the teevee (or movies) you've been watching recently, name the top five characters you'd want coming to rescue you from a bad situation.
I wasn't tagged*, but here are mine.
- Rocket Raccoon - seriously, no one thought of being rescued by a genetically engineered raccoon with a fetish for prosthetics?
- Rey - no explanation necessary.
- Baymax - being rescued by an intelligent balloon would be kind of funny.
- SpongeBob - why not?
- The Notorious RBG. Or Sotomayer. Or Kagan. (DM didn't say they had to be fictional characters.)
Clearly some of my recent(ish) viewings have been somewhat influenced by my spawn...
* Nobody loves me...
If you haven't already, please read this. Then spend some time thinking about it.
Much has been made of last week's "creatorgate" incident (PLoS ONE publishing and then retracting a paper that referred to a creator). You can read @Dr24Hours' take on this, which makes some very good points, here. I'm not going to say anything about the paper, the work in it, the ensuing twitter storm, or even PLoS ONE's response. There are many potential lessons to be learned from from this brouhaha. I'm just going to point out one...
If you're an editorial type who oversees the review process,
READ THE FUCKING MANUSCRIPT BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO SEND IT OUT FOR REVIEW.
That's something often referred to as "doing your job."