Notes

PRSB paper is out.

• TODO: Post to arxiv now that Drake’s side is out. Update vita. Reply to Drake. Clean up prosectors-fallacy repository. Post on paper(?)

• Note: github record of earlier version of paper turns out handy in reply, (showed earlier wording about not necessary).

• Also, some quick significance testing of distributional differences associated with the patterns we show in Figure 1, for what it’s worth (in reply to query - yay for clean workflow making this easy).

• one day, follow up with Sebastian about the Freidlin-Wentzell work. “Yes, I’d be interested in trying a little dynamic programming for the discrete-time variational problem; it would be educational for me at least, and potentially applicable to some more specific research questions.” (me, April 23).

• Read remaining articles in special issue of TE on warning signals, write out notes. Clear out ‘unsorted’ backlog

• forking the r-journal; see separate post.

Some thoughts on publishing reviews.

• Excellent and provactive example by McGlynn, who links all reviews on papers to which he is a first author (the full cascade, not just reviews from the journal that ultimately accepted the paper). Comments

• More thoughts and some comments from me on Tim’s blog

• Celebrating seven years of Biology Direct Koonin et al 2013

Poisot et al on data sharing. Nice piece, but the value of a metadata standard for distributing data is clearly not appreciated. Authors advocate data shared over an API without any notion of schema, and do not discuss the challenges and coarse-graining that goes into such vertically integrated repositories.

Reviewing the new Broader impacts guidelines

2013 changes removes the examples, adds three new potential areas, and now uses the same assessment guidelines as the merit review does – importantly: requiring metrics of success.

Include but not limited to:

1. full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); (diversity)
2. improved STEM education and educator development at any level; (education)
3. increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; (dissemination)
4. improved well-being of individuals in society; (society)
5. increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; (partnerships) (new)
6. improved national security; (security) (new)
7. increased economic competitiveness of the United States; (economy) (new)
8. enhanced infrastructure for research and education. (infrastructure)

official text in the GPG

Criteria

1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to:

1. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
2. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?

2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

official text in the GPG

packages

• revisit Noam’s knitcitations pull request? (#45)
• pushed documentation to RMendeley. authored works for me, funny error for Noam…