tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post5727634530850314574..comments2024-03-24T15:07:18.773+01:00Comments on The Stuttering Brain: Should I soul search?Tom Weidighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-10755249503970649742009-09-09T21:06:36.957+02:002009-09-09T21:06:36.957+02:00Didn't that stutter.me researcher do some res...Didn't that stutter.me researcher do some research (???) on deaf people stuttering in sign language?<br /><br />Have you reviewed that study? <br /><br />Is that worthy research Mr. Weidig?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-31273333507176667242009-01-20T03:50:00.000+01:002009-01-20T03:50:00.000+01:00It may sound cynical, but a paper usually gets acc...It may sound cynical, but a paper usually gets accepted when it corresponds with what the reviewers think is right. For example, in the science of physics, if somebody were to write a paper on a new unification theory, it would be impossible for it to be approved if the reviewers are string theorists. How about an alternative to the big bang theory? Same thing; the reviewers are likely to be biased toward the standard cosmological model. We saw how Arthur Eddington refused to accept Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar's correct theory of the fate of white dwarf stars. Eddington was very powerful and nobody had the balls to challenge him; his attitude set astrophysics back by a few decades.<BR/><BR/>Even in the world of stuttering "research", you would be horrified at Susan Block's unreasonable reaction when confronted by the Maguire therapy or the Valsalva technique. Why is she so unreasonable? Because Maguire is taking away customers from her smooth speech therapy, and that costs her money and prestige. In her speech pathology course at Latrobe University in Melbourne, she only teaches smooth speech therapy!<BR/><BR/>To get a paper accepted, you have to get past the "bully at the door". If the paper agrees with the bully's view of the world, then it gets accepted.<BR/><BR/>But these days, there is the internet. We can publish our views and theories on websites, blogs, newsgroups, etc., thus bypassing the bully at the door.<BR/><BR/>GeorgeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-16595692981455576722009-01-20T00:18:00.000+01:002009-01-20T00:18:00.000+01:00Peer review usually works but sometimes the decisi...Peer review usually works but sometimes the decision to accept a paper to be published can be arbitrary (someone could either get very lucky or unlucky depending on which reviewers you get). Journals that have higher impact are usually harder to get into--for instance 95% of papers submitted to the journal Nature gets rejected (this not only reflects the quality of the work required but also how broad of a readership would be interested in your work). <BR/>It may be reasonable to say that in general, getting papers into more science oriented journals may be much more rigorous than getting papers into speech oriented journals. But again, it may depend on which reviewers/editor you get!<BR/>S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-84277529345480121762009-01-19T22:28:00.001+01:002009-01-19T22:28:00.001+01:00but this paper was peer reviewed and published.......but this paper was peer reviewed and published....published!!!<BR/><BR/>Unless the journal is a crappy journal????Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-14508182289046733302009-01-19T22:28:00.000+01:002009-01-19T22:28:00.000+01:00but this paper was peer reviewed and published.......but this paper was peer reviewed and published....published!!!<BR/><BR/>Unless the journal is a crappy journal????Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-45511448836802478732009-01-18T00:51:00.000+01:002009-01-18T00:51:00.000+01:00As a researcher myself I have to speak out and say...As a researcher myself I have to speak out and say I will have to agree with Tom. It is the regular life of a scientist to have his/her work critically reviewed and at times get papers based on painstakingly conducted research be outrightly rejected by journals. Of course this is not easy, but every time this happens, you learn something and most of the time it helps make the science better. It's not about getting your feelings hurt, it's about advancing knowledge.<BR/><BR/>A mentor of mine once told me, "If you want to be unconditionally loved, get a puppy. Otherwise, if you want to stay in science get used to the fact that your work will be criticized, and know that work interesting enough to be criticized is much better than work that does not get talked about at all." <BR/><BR/>Just another note in defense of Tom: It's not like all research has been criticized in this blog; Exciting and noteworthy work were given their due notice, often with a grain of salt, which is good.<BR/><BR/>S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-63152076783349011062009-01-16T17:33:00.000+01:002009-01-16T17:33:00.000+01:00Currently, there is one area of science where "com...Currently, there is one area of science where "communicating cracks in the bridge" is not acceptable.... global warming. Why, because of funding. Science conducted at the academy will remove objectivity for a research grant. Sometimes, one has to follow the money.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com