Publishing conundrum

by Randy Son Of Robert
The Catch 22 of Academic Publishing:
[Via Research Blogging - All Topics - English]

“Publish or perish”.You’ve heard the phrase, right? Well, apparently, getting published in the first place is not as easy as it seems, and the peer-review process may not as objective and unbiased as you may think. If you’re in (as in belonging to the right academic circles, and thus worthy of being published), you’re in, almost no matter what you write, but if you’re not in, finding someone willing to take you in is practically impossible, or is it?

[More]

It is much easier to get published in high quality journals if you are from the ‘right’ labs. To a certain extent, this is human nature. But it also creates the standard paradox. Just as you often get a job if you have experience in the job, you get into high quality journals because you have been published in high quality journals.

It is not to tough to get published somewhere but in order to make it into Nature or Science, it helps to have the right pedigree. I was really taken with this quote from the paper:

… more than half of all academic papers are never cited anywhere, and the majority of academics never receive as many as three citations in a lifetime.

That is an amazing factoid.

Technorati Tags: Science

Music and Creativity

Gonna (Evolve To) Sing You My Love Song:
[Via Research Blogging - All Topics - English]

Why do we like to sing soppy love songs to our loved one? What is it about them that evokes a mood of affinity and bonding? Why do tears spring to our eyes when we hear a lyric that reminds us of a friendship, relationship or other close bond?

The composition and interpretation of music through song, dance, and playing a musical instrument, are complex and high-level tasks of the creative brain. Indeed, the ‘creative’ aspects of personality are thought to constitute a particular division of intelligence in itself. Although it is possible to gain a certain level of proficiency in playing the works of Beethoven and Mozart through social and/or environmental factors (parental support, music school), the phenomenon of the child prodigy does in fact suggest an innate genetic basis for talent. Creativity itself is a complex process that draws largely from areas of the right hemisphere, not activating the frontal lobes or cortices very much. And since we are talking mainly of cognitive processes,we can expect hormones such as arginine vasopressin (AVP), which helps to control higher functions such as memory and learning, to take a lead role. Given that this hormone is mediated by the AVP receptor 1A (AVPR1A) gene, that affects many behavioural, social and emotional traits such as male aggression, pair bonding, altruism, parenting, sibling relationships, love etc., it stands to reason that this key gene is the one to watch.

[More]

An interesting study. People with music skills score higher on creativity tests and appear to have a greater chance of having a specific set of genes. And it appears that creativity is a heritable feature. These are some things to keep an eye on in the coming years.

Technorati Tags: Health, Science

There should be a NEJD

by Martino!
Humor: The secret of happiness is the number of suckupors:
[Via crosscut.com : Crosscurrent]

Getting something you want—a promotion, money, a new car—brings happiness for only a short period. After six months, one is usually less happy than before. In the latest issue of The New England Journal of Despair Dr. H. G. Rector proposes the SUR theory to explain this phenomenon.

An associate professor of psychopathology at Boston University, Dr. Rector contends that happiness is most affected by one’s Suck-Up Ratio (SUR), that is the ratio of people to whom you have to suck up (suckupees) to the people who suck up to you (suckupors). Happiness decrease as you must suck up to more people and increases as more suck up to you.

However, the relationship is not even. Dr. Rector’s research reveals that it takes at least five additional suckupors to offset the pain of a single new suckupee. This explains why getting what you want can decrease happiness. Consider three examples:

Promotion: A corporate controller is promoted to Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Previously she needed to suck up to her boss, the then CFO, and the CEO. In turn, 14 employees sucked up to her producing a happy 7:1 SUR. Now as CFO, she must suck up to the CEO plus the nine members of the board of directors. At best she will add 16 new suckupors in the finance department. Her SUR is now 3:1 and she is miserable.

Yes, this is humor and there is no NEJD, although we need one. Or at least a Pacific Northwest Journal of Despair. I laughed out loud at the snarky comment in the last sentence here:

Money: Suppose through a windfall—winning the lottery, receiving a government bailout, or robbing a bank—you receive $100 million. You are immediately invited to join the board of a prestigious non-profit institution. Fifteen board members suck up to you, hoping you will write checks to this and other non-profits. Ten consider you an arriviste and expect you to suck up to them.

To maintain 5:1 SUR you need to attract 35 additional suckupors. Attempting to do so you join another board with the same result and are now 79 suckupors short. You are now rich and unhappy.

The above scenario may not hold in all locations. For example, in Seattle social climbing is unknown for the same reasons mountaineering is unknown in Kansas—there is nowhere to climb. (We are talking about a town where “old money” means you invested in Amazon in 1997.)

I grew up in Houston, another town where old money does not go back very far (maybe to 1956 for example). I don’t recall people joining the boards of non-profits there either. However, if someone had $100 million in either city, there are lots of for-profit corporations who would love to have them on their board, hoping you would write checks. Then your ratio may be a little bit better, since the CEO , CFO and all the employees would have to suck up to you.

I think there should also be a factor that relies on the relative power of each suckupors. A single CEo suckup should be equivalent to several lower employees. The ‘value’ of the suckupor should be included, not just the quantity.

As well, having to suckup to a CEO would seem to include a higher value than having to suckup to a district manager. I think I might just submit a paper to the NEJD.

Technorati Tags: General