Sentences with phrase «scientists getting their work published»

In the meantime, I wonder do you get why a retired dentist opining in the blogosphere and a couple of scientists getting their work published are greeted differently?

Not exact matches

If someone else publishes this work, Smith will likely be able to get his Ph.D., but he won't have a publication — not a good situation for a young scientist.

But biology preprints are catching on, with proponents arguing that they will speed the dissemination of research, help researchers to get feedback on their work quickly, and allow young scientists to get credit for work that hasn't yet been formally published.

Later, in Brussels, I became hooked on the difficulties my fellow scientists in the South had in finding partners, in getting their excellent work published, etc., and, without a second thought, I decided to spend a few years trying to tackle that problem.

When the scientists involved at Woburn published their work, they got a lot of criticism because people felt that they were relying on anecdotal information.

Five to 10 years ago, the sequencing of a single gene was often sufficient to get a scientist's work published in a prestigious journal.

In one recent study published in the journal Science Translational Medicine, scientists looked at people with recurring migraine headaches over the course of multiple attacks and found that when docs told patients they had high expectations that a treatment would work well, it did — even if it was a sugar pill, and even when the patients were told they were getting the placebo.

G&T managed to get their work out there; publishing it in Nature or Science would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist would use...

You make unjustified and untrue ad homimem attacks on excellent scientists whose work provides doubt to AGW although their work has often been challenged but never faulted: e.g. you say «I have never argued against people like Lindzen and Christy and Spencer continuing to do their work and attempting to get it published in reputable peer - reviewed journals, even if their work does seem to become increasingly sloppy and desperate.»

Let me guess, like Mr. Steele, you argue that it is much better to publish your science on blogs because it «gets the word out», and avoids «suppression» if your work had to be subject to peer review by informed climate scientists, and you remain amusingly self - unaware that this preference actually accidentally reveals that your aspirations are political — you desire the exposure, or less euphemistically, propaganda, which a blog can provide, not the vigorous hearing in the court of logic that the scientific and peer review process offers.

Yes, scientists dislike it when work that they think deliberately obfuscates the issues gets published.

lolwot, in the past was: if you don't give 10 % to the church, St. Peter will get angry and will sent hailstorms and create floods; after Darwin published his book — the shonky scientists started with GLOBAL warmings and ice ages to scare the people — only now because of electronic media and communication technology — they are more loud — but the scare tactic doesn't work; because people are not buying the new socialist religion of worshiping the CO2: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/q-a/