Journal of Cephalopod Biology

Steve O'Shea

TONMO Supporter
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
4,671
OK - here's a call for Arty folk to come up with the first cover for the journal, the little ceph journal with no name.

The cover illustration would change with each issue, but the general template (TONMO logo and journal name) would remain constant.

Come up with some possible names. There's some stunning artwork already online.

It would be rather nice to have an article on computer animation of squid and octopus also ....
 


WhiteKiboko

TONMO Supporter
Registered
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
2,702
Steve O'Shea said:
(rather than mix a recipe with a behavioral paper, or one dealing with culture)

i wonder if anyone has down working examining toughening and softening of octo or squid as it cooks....
 

Nik

Blue Ring
Registered
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
31
i wonder if anyone has down working examining toughening and softening of octo or squid as it cooks....

the first paper you find on sciencedirect if you search for squid is "Effect of the addition of different ingredients on the characteristics of a batter coating for fried seafood prepared without a pre-frying step" which i kinda like.
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,169
Steve O'Shea said:
A more formal peer-reviewed journal would not accept any manuscript for publication if it has been published elsewhere (in full) ..... Obviously a TONMO journal would not be an appropriate journal in which to publish ground-breaking news (for the scientific community)... HOWEVER, it would be an appropriate place for science folk to publish abridged versions of earlier-published works. It would also be an excellent journal for non-scientific folk to publish their first and subsequent articles...

So Steve, I'm not sure I'm getting your frequency here... What about those people who interview for Scientific American and other such "popular" science mags - are they also talking about earlier work, or are they "allowed", if you will, to give the public a sneak peek at their present or future work? Would this not also affect their peers' perceptions of them in the negative? Sorry, don't mean to sound aggressive here, but I've read some seriously disturbingly wierd science in such magazines which even I could pretty much say was assumption and practically akin to magic or pseudoscience. I guess what I'm trying to ask is wether or not scientific discussion here on the board is a liability in the academic (worldview) sense.

I'm not trying to attack anyone, but it seems that this view of publishing is a bad one on the side of the "established" journals, and that it should be their peer reviewers who bear the majority of responsibilty to make sure that the articles are well-written and scientifically sound, regardless of where this information was first published. Legal copyright and printing laws aside for a moment, it is anathema to good science to first worry about where information was first discussed instead of the quality of the actual work. Is this a case of "loose lips sink ships"?

My :twocents:, being that's pretty much what that's worth considering I don't have a degree... :grad:

John
 


Joined
Apr 3, 2003
Messages
1,137
Hi John

This is the only thing that will come up in the Physiology and Biology forum about which I contribute information!

John, there is an element of "loose lips sink ships" in publishing, academic and other. This is probably why Steve sometimes says that he will later post something really interesting - or perhaps it is just to tease us! Something that no one has seen before is more desirable for a journal or news source. Scoops win!

Many people re-package an idea or an experiment or highlight different facets of it to publish more than one journal article (not journalism, but say, an academic journal) using data collected at the same time. A way to combine the prestige of a journal article with the oomph of more general press is to issue a press release on the day the article appears or someone gives a talk at a conference. In that case, the journal is the de facto first place it appears, and would usually offer far more depth and accuracy than more general media.

You are absolutely correct that it is the responsibility of the peer reviewers to maintain scientific standards. This is not only to protect against "hoaxes" (obfuscating jargon being used to pull one over on editors) but also to judge whether the researcher used appropriate measures, didn't confuse correlation with causation, checked all their numbers, and so on. But all this is also the responsibility of the author - it's not good to get a reputation for submitting crap work.

Academic writing is not a place where good writing is valued over content. I find myself in the regrettable position of having to edit things in such a way as to remove a writer's style! Sometimes the format of the publication trumps good writing, and that is a pity.

My idea - which is probably really different from whatever may result - of a TONMO production would straddle different spheres, with a certain amount of science written for the layperson, links to more in-depth articles so as to offer laypeople the opportunity to read more, and maybe some less scientific pieces from home aquarists and items that could fall under Culture and Entertainment. It wouldn't fit into any publishing categories, but it would reflect what TONMO community members might enjoy.

I hope this wasn't more than you wanted to know!

Melissa
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,169
Melissa,

Thanks for the reply. Actually, that's exactly what I wanted to know! I kinda figured that was the deal. I hope I didn't sound like I was jumping on Steve. I just get frustrated at all the academic elitism I see at the University level, and how detrimental it is to science both scientifically and politically, and I would hate to see anone, especially as influential as Steve, get burned by those types. Having worked with one of the most politically-charged government agencies in the U.S., I have learned first-hand how much manipulation and back-door dealing goes on. Its disheartening, yes, but it makes you learn diplomacy REAL quick.

I totally understand.

John
 

monty

TONMO Supporter
Staff member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
4,884
As an added stupidity no one has yet mentioned. sometimes academics are judged on the number of papers submitted-- there are actually some universities that have tenure requirements for number of papers published per year, so someone who published 6 stupid papers per year in "the journal of underwater basket-weaving" may get tenure when their colleague who publishes ground-breaking papers in Science or Nature isn't even considered. So, there is a cottage industry of journals that are credible enough to be counted towards quotas, but bogus enough that they don't do a good job of determining that the work is original, or meaningful, or whatever.

blech.
 

Steve O'Shea

TONMO Supporter
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
4,671
Fujisawas Sake said:
"I hope I didn't sound like I was jumping on Steve", and "I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not scientific discussion here on the board is a liability in the academic (worldview) sense"

I've just been so busy of late, John, that I hadn't responded; sorry.

No, I never thought that you were jumping on me (although everyone else is, and beating up Neil too). To a certain extent discussing new finds online has concerned me in the past, especially when these finds are unpublished (letting the cat out of the bag when it comes to research), especially when something had been submitted and knowing that if we were 'exposed' for having something in near-entirety online then our manuscript could well be rejected. What is of greater concern to me is discussing an idea freely, bouncing ideas around, even when I know that there are some less-than-ethical persons in the cephalopod community that would not hesitate to embark on a comparable research programme, or use information online for the sake of their own publications. There are some not-so-nice people out there. I've thought long and hard about this, and it no longer concerns me, so I for one will continue to talk freely about some of the exciting research developments, and take pity on anyone that would or might flog an online idea because of their own creative inadequacy.

We have to ask ourselves the question "For whom are we writing these papers?" Is it to boost our own egos, increase our publication record, or is it to disseminate information? If the real purpose of this is the latter then let's get stuff online. I know that my knowledge has benefited tremendously from online discussions, so it is mutually beneficial.

Re the journals - there is still a need for these, and for the peer-review process. That is quality control. Otherwise everything I say could be crap ... and we don't want that (I'm happy if only half of it is crap). It is one thing discussing ideas online, but another altogether drawing all of this together into an article suitable for publication.
 

Latest Posts


Top