International Science Research Journals

International Science Research Journal (ISRJ) is an online publisher of the world's highest impact, most cutting-edge research. As a leader in open-access (OA), ISRJ caters to only the most interdisciplinary, highest-impact research. While keeping the highest editorial standards we have the fastest peer-review guarantee with a maximum turnaround time of 24 hours. We have a lower acceptance rate (on first submission) than Nature or Science (although upon second submission there is an almost 100% acceptance rate). For only the low rate of $400 to submit, $100 for each figure, $50 for each appendix, $25 for each author, and $10 for each affiliation you can submit a manuscript. Also note for each citation you give to the journal you receive a $5 discount on your submission fee, which reminds us that our impact factor is 46.4.

Disclaimer: This is a work of satire. In the tradition of A Prairie Home Companion, this ad, among others, will form the backbone of the underwriting and sponsorship of my podcast.

Brain Learning Institute

The field of education is a largely untapped resources begging to be milked year after year for profit. Currently only textbooks are able to run rampant in the sector with massive profit margins that can be kept high by releasing new editions or locking the actual use of book (e.g., submitting problem sets) behind DRMs and paywalls. While education is slow to change and adapt on a large scale, pseudo-neuroscience/education evangelists are trying to find ways into education through gimmicky technologies and promises. At the Brain Learning Institute we work to inoculate educators and administrators from neuroscience snake oil salesmen by debunking neuro-ed myths. No more 10% myth, no more left/right brain learners and no more learning style differences. By making an investment early, you can avoid the pain of buying into false neuroeducational practices and products.

Disclaimer: This is a work of satire. In the tradition of A Prairie Home Companion, this ad, among others, will form the backbone of the underwriting and sponsorship of my podcast.

March Madness

March Madness not only brings us 64 games of drama filled college basketball, but the opportunity to hear about how psychological principles apply to even the most fun events in our lives. Below are a few of the most common concepts that we'll encounter over the next two weeks.

Superstition
Your unwashed lucky jersey, a pregame meal of Skittles and a steak, a ridiculous coordinated handshake a pigeons spinning in circles all share something in common: superstition. There is a tendency to infer causality between closely occurring events with positive secondary events (e.g., winning a game, getting a food reward) more likely to cause a repetition of the first event (e.g. not tying your shoes) in the future, while negative secondary events (e.g., losing the game, not getting food) are more likely to case a decrease in repeating the first event in the future. Operant conditioning breaks a behavior down into tiny reinforceable pieces. B.F. Skinner explored conditioning and reinforcement in his study of radical behaviorism. With pigeons and rats he was able to shape behavior through different types of reinforcement applied on various schedules. In sports we can see the principles of behaviorism in rituals developed by athletes and fans alike. Even picking brackets may be influenced from year to year when you win your previous seasons bracket by choosing which mascot could beat up the other.

Lesson: Unless you make the game winning shot, almost anything you do will have little effect on the outcome of the games you watch or the teams you cheer for

Hot Hand
The hot hand fallacy is the false belief that previous success in a random event will lead to a greater chance of further success. In basketball, the hot hand fallacy is that after a player hits two shots in a row, they will be more likely to hit the next shot. Instead of viewing the probability of a player making a shot over the long-term, people are more likely to view smaller sequences of hot and cold streaks (i.e. clustering illusion). More broadly humans are constantly finding patterns within random sequences (Gilovich et al., 1985).

Lesson: Don't give the ball to the career 29% shooter who's hit 4/5 for the last shot over the career 47% shooter.

Underdogs
So called Cinderella teams may be the most exciting parts of the annual March Madness. These "bracket-busters"seeds 9-15 (we can't include 16 as they have never beat a 1 team) can place their school on the map, from the 1985 Villanova Wildcats, to the 2006 George Mason Patriots, and capture a place in America's favorite narrative. However, even if we like the narrative, the odds are not in the favor of Cinderella teams. Ignoring the issues of human rankings of teams we see that the better team usually wins.

Lesson: Yes teams ranked lower by humans win games, but win we look at statistical rankings of teams, the better team usually wins.

So as we finish filling out our brackets we can be reminded of the psychological issues that interface with all aspects of our lives or just sit down and watch some basketball.

"Lack of critical thinking in strike"

In college I avoided English classes like the plague. After my first year writing course, I only took one English course and it took place during Interim with the topic covering protest in American literature, comparing and contrasting literary authors and American singer-song writers (i.e. I listened to Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen and analyzed how their lyrics spoke to themes found in Steinbeck and Ellison). When approaching a critical analysis of any piece or idea you can generally take one of two tracts, a surface level and a deep level. Although not always true, the track you take is often dependent on your experience with the piece or idea. In a recent article in The Star on the strikes occurring at York University and University of Toronto, the author comments on a lack of critical thinking, but appears to come at the issue so far removed from it, that in their analysis citing a lack of critical thinking, they miss all of the deeper issues that with critical analysis would be revealed.

I've never heard of the author of this article before, Martin Regg Cohn, but he is a political commentator for the Toronto Star. Wading through the article, its hard to find his point. Under the title is a subtitle: "Labour strife has exposed fault lines in university faculties — byzantine hierarchies where part-time teachers toil in classroom sweatshops." while a caption for the included photograph says: "While a hardy band of low-paid contract lecturers bear the brunt of teaching, a coddled elite of tenured professors are among the best-paid on the planet — while teaching fewer courses than ever, and sloughing off research duties." and the article concludes: "But as other sectors adjust to upheaval — from manufacturing to media to hospitals — we should demand greater accountability and clarity from universities. It’s not just students who deserve a better deal, but part-time teachers, too. Listen to the canaries in the ivory tower." What I pull from these comments is that Mr. Cohen believes that Universities have created two classes of workers with tenure-track faculty riding high hogs with no teaching responsibilities and zero cares about research output while contract faculty perform all of the teaching. He cites a "hallowed" rule that tenure-track faculty divvy their responsibilities 40-40-20 among research, teaching and service, that some professors hadn't published or received funding in 3 years and were well compensated. Taken together I understand this piece as a diatribe against tenure-track professors, however, as the title suggests, Mr. Cohn lacks critical insight into the issues underlying the environment from which these strikes are arising.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I've written about these issues before (here and here) with the gist suggesting that we need to re-think how we evaluate and reward research output and reconsider or come to an agreement on the roles of universities/colleges, in particular research universities in society. Without the private sector respecting a PhD for the general skills it provides (similar to the general skills that a liberal arts education provides), there will continue to be a glut of PhDs who are hoping to work towards a tenure-track position, with few other options. As long as there is pressure to enroll as many PhD students as possible in order to produce as much as possible, we'll be unable to escape the cycle of enrolling more students and turning out too many PhDs. Mr. Cohn and others deride faculty for their apparent unwillingness to teach, but faculty at R1 institutions receive little to no reward for teaching (in the narrow sense of teaching in classroom). Even outside of Universities, few people talk about the best teaching institutions unless they're high school guidance councilors. Most of the time that colleges are mentioned for their prestige or impact, the reference is to their research output not how many classes their professor taught that semester or how high their ratemyprofessor.com ratings are.

We can look at these strikes on the surface and make very little contribution with our comments, tenure track professors don't teach enough, tenure track professor only work 9 months a year and are paid too much, TAs, contract faculty are only working part-time, why are they expecting full-time wages. Or we can look past these surface issues and try to understand why colleges and universities value research output from their tenure faculty, why they rely on cheap options to teach every expanding classes and why little will change without massive overhaul across the private sector, government funding and the research culture.

International Women's Day

Yesterday was International Women's Day and like most of society, I'm late to recognizing women. IWD is meant to empower women and raise awareness about the prejudice and hardships that women implicitly face based on their sex. In science and academia women face a number of issues that are slowly and hopefully successfully being addressed.

My wife and I have a unique perspective on these issues as we have the same educational background albeit slightly different research agendas. When I finished my PhD and went to take a postdoc, there was implicit belief that she would move with me and finish her final year of her PhD from afar. When we said that she wouldn't do that the next question was whether she was looking for postdocs or jobs in Toronto for when she finished. Finding a job in academia is hard, finding jobs for academic couples near each other is very difficult and finding jobs for academic couples in the same field is likely impossible. With these issues if we look into these couples and their difficulties we likely see that for women have the more difficult job search in the couple.

In the midst of the difficulties applying for jobs I recognize that as hard as it is for me, my wife faces a number of biases both within and outside of academia. All of her thoughts and actions carry certain connotations that are generally viewed negatively. It also seems like she has to work twice as hard to get half as much back. With a full competitive fellowship, multiple first author publications (with a clear research plan that can be carried out with undergrads) and experience teaching at two different small liberal arts colleges, she seems like the perfect candidate for a tenure track position at a liberal arts college, or as visiting professor or as a teaching postdoc. I don't think about it too much but I wonder if I had been a female if my experience through grad school would have been different, would have applying for postdocs been different and would apply for tenure track jobs be different.

In my own supervision of research and some of my engagement work I have worked to advocate for women in science. I'll continue to fight for the rights and treatment of women in science and recognize my own implicit biases and advantages as a male scientist, while doing my best to not discount that differences in sex are leading to two very different experiences in science.

Roman Research Institute 25th Anniversary Conference

The conference began a little slowly on Monday morning so I guess it wasn't just the attendees with a case of the Mondays. Sitting in one of the meeting rooms I was surrounded by hundreds of professors, clinicians, postdocs and graduate students and although the print was tiny and it was difficult to read, I found few if any community groups or members represented amongst the crowd. As the introductory speaker began I couldn't help but wonder what the cause of the lack of community members was. Was there a lack of interest from the public, was the registration fee too exhorbinate, or are conferences one of the last bastions of the ivory tower where we academics can hob nob with each other, speaking in our jargon and buzzwords without the care or need to translate our speech. As I look to the next three days of the conference I'll think about the role of conferences in academia, in science and in society at large.

Conferences were originally a way to exchange thoughts and ideas and bring academics together to debate and collaborate. In the 21st century, conferences feel like an outdated and outmoded function. Communication across the globe happens continously and instantly, waiting to get together on a specific day in a particular place doesn't fit with our capabilities today. However, that might be symptomatic of what I suspect conferences are actually for, the amorphous term, networking. Gathering people in fun or exotic locations with the excuse of a meeting allows big players in science to get together and meet outside of the conference itself. It allows them to introduce their trainees to their colleagues and protect their inner circle. Trainees at each level are either in the game and trying to figure out a way through networking to claw their way to the next notch on the totem pole to tenure or out of the game and trying to have fun at the bars or local attractions.

Since networking is likely why conferences still exist in their antiquated form and the exchange of ideas is just a consequence, I can understand why community members are not present. As science begins to turn to the public directly for funding (i.e, crowdfunding), perhaps science needs to reconsider how much they value how conferences are run in their current form. Taking money from the people and not working to make conferences accessible will lead to the public abandoning science and leaving scientists stuck like Rapunzel in their ivory towers. Even though I'm guilty of the problem of one way communication with this blog, my twitter and if i start my podcast, we have to figure out how to communicate with and listen to the public as we look to the future of science.

Reviewer Etiquette: Just because you're anonymous doesn't mean you need to troll

scienceblogs.com

Peer-review may be the cornerstone of the scientific process as it is the gate through which both forms of scientific currency (publications and grants) must pass. Peer-review serves as the quality control system in which all scientific discoveries and ideas are scrutinized and and vetted by other experts. Peer-review is meant to make scientific communication trusted, but peer-reviewed work isn't necessarily correct or conclusive, even if it has met some standard of science. After the peer-review process is over and a paper/grant has passed through the gate, it doesn't mean that the process is over, science must deal with it somehow either through responding with commentary, other related studies or replication attempts. However, it often seems as though peer-review is treated as the final say, that flaws are magnified and if the paper doesn't meet some arbitrary standard or give the anonymous reviewer enough citations then it is the end and that idea or that study is stopped dead in its tracks right then and there.

In general the responsibilities of reviewers are to:

• Comment on the validity of the science, identifying scientific errors and evaluating the design and methodology used
• Judge the significance by evaluating the importance of the findings and how/where the findings fit in the literature (including identify missing or inaccurate references)
• Determine the originality of the work based on how much it advances the field
• Recommend that the paper be published or rejected. Editors don't have to heed this recommendation, but most do (this also varies by the number of reviewers rounded up - sometimes the decision needs to be unanimous, sometimes if the reviews are split another is brought in to break the tie and sometimes the editor makes the decision regardless of the reviewers)

In single-blind (where the authors don't know the reviewer identities) and double-blind (where neither reviewers nor authors know each other's identities) post-hoc (as opposed to pre-registration) review tend to have a few problems. 

1) Focusing on methodology when the study has already been completed

Pre-registration would seem to solve some of the most frequent reviewer requests, methodological issues, including adding new conditions, new controls or becoming obsessed with the fact that an experiment was run a particular way that they don't quite like. This change would take care of the first responsibility of reviewers, correcting errors in the design and methodology before the study even takes place. 

2) Lack of responsibility/accountability for reviewers

The removal of reviewers being blinded to the authors and readers may help change the level of constructiveness of the comments made in reviews. A tumblr aggregates some of the reviews that don't appear to fall into any of the responsibilities I mentioned above. Removing the veil of anonymity should help to improve the dialog and impact of the review process (here and here). We may even give more significance and value to reviewing. Review is a service and valuable contribution, but given little value in the eyes of the determination of your impact as a scientist. Often it seems as though review is passed off to trainees whose only experience evaluating the literature comes from lab meetings and reading groups where group think causes everyone to dump on the papers and nitpick the papers into oblivion. By naming reviewers (as the Frontiers family does) we give reviewers acknowledgment and accountability. We could go even further and note what they contributed to the study and figure out ways to evaluate the impact that individuals make as a reviewer similar to how we use authorship on papers to evaluate impact.

In the end, peer-review is not the end of the process but just a part of the process that extends far beyond a paper being published. By giving more responsibility and reward for review we should improve the process and remove the "me against the world" feelings shared by both authors and reviewers.