Stack Exchange
log in

Gabriel

 Discussion on question by AnonymousSc…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Gabriel
May 15, 2018 17:18
I think this point hasn't been mentioned so far but if being in Academia makes you feel so miserable, perhaps consider a different line of work? I'm not saying you are not "smart" enough or anything like it, it's just that not every job is a good fit for everybody, and you could perhaps feel a lot better in a different working scenario.
 

 Discussion on question by Worried bei…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Gabriel
Feb 26, 2018 14:27
No one else is bothered by the use of the word "competitor" in this context? Thinking of Academia as a "competition" is toxic to say the least.
 

 Discussion on question by Gabriel: Ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:57
This is Academia, not a play. There's a valid reason for "demanding" that whatever you published can be revised. That's how science works. It's not a childish tantrum.
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:57
If you are allowed to publish research using data that no one else has access to ever (not sure how it qualifies as research though) then you can at least share the code so it can be run with random data with the proper format.
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:57
So anonymize the data before sharing it?
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:57
@Walter the fact that the code could be faulty is one of the main reasons to demand that it be made available for revising.
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:57
@Prof.SantaClaus because you don't make it available for students, you need to make it available so the scientific community can both learn from and audit your code (which you used in a published research).
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:57
If you used that code in your research simply make it publicly available and save yourself the trouble of having random students come and ask you for it all the time.
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:57
@Prof.SantaClaus that is beyond the scope of this answer. The issue revolves around code used to generate published results.
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:57
In that case you can simply share the spreadsheet. I believe it's even easier.
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:57
Well, that's one of the strategies I can think of to pressure the author. I'm not saying it would definitely work. The question is more related to the right of the community to audit code used to publish a set of results.
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:57
Because they published those results, and without access to the source code there is no way to check/reproduce them.
 

 Discussion on answer by Richard Erick…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:55
Really? Go take a look at reputable journals of astronomy-astrophysics.
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:55
Several reputable journals actually. The result is not mindblowing, but in this particular case I have my own code to do basically the same, and I'd like to perform a thorough analysis/comparision.This question is broader than my particular case though.
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:55
The authors say "we used this piece of code which is described in this article". The original explanation given is very basic and raises lots of questions about how the code actually works.
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:55
In the particular case I am using as an example, no. If that were the case, I think they'd still need to share something. Any way to reproduce the results, basic steps at least.
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:55
Of course, but that doesn't resolve the issue. If the results do not match, I have no way of demonstrating why this is the case.
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:55
@RichardErickson I don't think any reasonable researcher would let it come to that, unless they have something to hide. xLeitix indeed, without the code I am forced to take results at face value, or flat out discard them on account of not being reproducible.
Gabriel
Sep 23, 2017 16:55
I agree with everything stated here, except the last line "you might need to accept that you cannot force someone to share his or her code with you". I do not accept this in the context I described. If the code is a key part of how the results were obtained but the author is unwilling to make it available, how is the community expected to validate or even trust those results?
 

 Discussion on question by Gabriel: Ho…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Gabriel
Oct 19, 2016 13:12
I can count three questions on Meta regarding gender, made in the last two weeks: meta.academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3484/…, meta.academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3499/…, meta.academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3280/…. I find it hard to understand why the users who closed this question believed it to be non related to Academia.
Gabriel
Oct 19, 2016 13:12
Addressing an anonymous referee is a rather common task in Academia. The question has value related to that fact. You disagree and closed to vote. That's ok, move on.
Gabriel
Oct 19, 2016 13:12
By putting it in the context of answering an anonymous referee.
Gabriel
Oct 19, 2016 13:12
From the grammar tag: Questions about proper use of grammar specific to academic writing.
Gabriel
Oct 19, 2016 13:12
Thank you Jon. Regarding your suggestion, I could perhaps avoid the use of their in this specific example, but I would need to use something at some point along my response letter.
 

 Discussion on answer by cbeleites: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Gabriel
May 9, 2016 13:18
"most researchers are paid for doing reviews", that's precisely the point: they are not. You think it is "standard duty for academic work" apparently because your University asks you to report your reviews. Would anything change if you stopped reviewing altogether and focused on publishing? For most researchers, nothing would change. They'd still receive the same salary as compensation for their work. You seem to believe that if you stopped reviewing your University would either fire you or reduce your salary?
Gabriel
May 9, 2016 13:18
The downvote is not mine BTW, I always leave a comment explaining why I downvoted whenever I do.
Gabriel
May 9, 2016 13:18
"most academics I know are paid for reviewing (via their employment contract)" doesn't seem to be true based on what you say, but an assumption from "I'm paid for "publication activities" and that clearly includes reviews". In any case, you simply shifted the question to "why doesn't the employer (research institute, university) charge the publisher for services received?", which is basically the same issue. You say that in Germany you can charge, but to "convince a publisher to pay you" means that it is still up to the publisher, so it's pretty much the same deal as everywhere else.
 

 Discussion on question by Gabriel: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Gabriel
May 8, 2016 20:29
@CapeCode "if you don't like their products, don't buy them" that's not possible when a company has a virtual monopoly on your field's journals and some of your own peers pressure you into working for them for free, thus perpetuating the cycle.
Gabriel
May 8, 2016 20:29
@CapeCode is correct. Of course they do something. They exploit a vulnerability of the scientific community by holding their own hard work hostage through the veiled threat of ostracizing you if you refuse to work for them for nothing.
 

 Ten fold

CrossValidated's general room for gossip, grumbles, and idle c...
Gabriel
Oct 1, 2015 19:00
Quick question. This answer stats.stackexchange.com/a/171619/10416 mentions the formula for the weighted standard deviation. Isn't that the variance?
 

 elementary OS

General discussion for elementaryos.stackexchange.com
Gabriel
Jul 13, 2015 18:47
Re-read what I said above. That is all.
Gabriel
Jul 13, 2015 18:46
I'm not a newcomer here and I don't appreciate you micromanaging every character I type.
Gabriel
Jul 13, 2015 18:46
Look, I've already made my request quite clear: at least with my answers/questions I'd like you to slow your editing down to a minimum.
Gabriel
Jul 13, 2015 18:45
And their accepted answer changed, as it usually happens.
Gabriel
Jul 13, 2015 18:45
The original question was Right now i minimize one by one all windows, is there any shortcut or command to minimize all windows?
Gabriel
Jul 13, 2015 18:43
You've been reckless with some of your edits and ended up changing the meaning of the question more than once.
Gabriel
Jul 13, 2015 18:42
@Kultom the original question did: elementaryos.stackexchange.com/revisions/396/1. I see now that it has been edited by Tim and changed its meaning. Not the first time he does this. — Gabriel 34 mins ago
Gabriel
Jul 13, 2015 18:42
I just did revert back one of your edits, and you edited it again (the title of my latest question)
Gabriel
Jul 13, 2015 18:41
@Tim pretty much every post right now contains an edit by you. I'd call that en masse.
Gabriel
Jul 13, 2015 18:05
@Tim unless you have a specific policy-based reason , please stop editing people's questions & answers en masse.
 

 TeX, LaTeX and Friends

\begin{chat}
4
11
Gabriel
Sep 1, 2014 20:04
@PauloCereda no worries, I'll see what I can do. Thanks anyway!
Gabriel
Sep 1, 2014 19:10
I see nothing that might be causing the error in that page, neither at the top or at the bottom. No footnotes, url links, nothing, just some text and refs to equations, tables and figures close to the edges
Gabriel
Sep 1, 2014 19:08
sorry :P
Gabriel
Sep 1, 2014 19:08
@Paulo
Gabriel
Sep 1, 2014 19:06
or at the end of it?
Gabriel
Sep 1, 2014 19:06
does that mean the issue is at the beginning of page 16?
Gabriel
Sep 1, 2014 19:06
Underfull \vbox (badness 10000) has occurred while \output is active [15]
[16
! pdfTeX error (ext4): \pdfendlink ended up in different nesting level than \pd
fstartlink.
\AtBegShi@Output ...ipout \box \AtBeginShipoutBox
\fi \fi
l.2240
Gabriel
Sep 1, 2014 19:06
@PauloCereda, I tried. Let me see if I got it right. This is the error output I see:
Gabriel
Sep 1, 2014 19:04
@PauloCereda yes, using the draft mode makes it compile
Gabriel
Sep 1, 2014 19:03
More info: it compiles fine with pdflatex but complains when I use: pdflatex -draftmode file.tex && bibtex file.aux && pdflatex -draftmode file.tex && pdflatex file.tex