![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
It's a Micro World after all is a blog dedicated to discussing pretty much whatever I feel like. When I delve into scientific matters it will primarily be discussing microbiology (agricultural, bioenergy, and environmental focus). Otherwise, I'll probably ramble on about sports and life.
My posts are presented as opinion and commentary and do not represent the views of LabSpaces Productions, LLC, my employer, or my educational institution.
Please wait while my tweets load 
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
... I'm still around, but barely. Trying to wrap up some "minor revisions" for a manuscript which were not so minor when considering the fact that the Associate Editor wanted me to split my "Results and Discussion" into two sections, and Reviewer #3 waxed philosophical about some of my comparisons. So it's mostly busy work, though I really want to beg off having to rewrite and restructure half of my paper. Also annoying in the sense that looking at the AE's publications in same said journal ... and he's used a combined R&D for every manuscript he's submitted there. Gah.
At any rate, I will not be daunted by the task ahead of me ...
Muse "Uprising" Best Special Effects VMA 2010 from HUMBLE TV on Vimeo.
This post has been viewed: 133 time(s)
![]() |
![]() |
I never get when some journals have combined and separated R&D in the SAME freaking issue. Either do it one damn way or the other.
Separate R&D sections are non-sensical. I've only written one manuscript like that, and that one could easily have turned out to be a Note.
As when Nobel Laureate Sir Peter Medawar insisted* that writing a discussion section separate from the results was akin to <i>pretending</i> that you were unaware of the impact your results have in the field as you're collecting the data.
*Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud? http://contanatura-hemeroteca.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/medawar_paper_fraud.pdf
Also check his book "Advice to a Young Scientist".
Is it really up to the journal? The last MS I wrote (and the two that I am now) will have a seperate R and D section-but I use the D as more of a "summary". I use the results to compare the "things" (i.e. granny smith apples to golden delicious) and then use the discussion to put everything in a bigger context. Maybe it's bad form. Sorry if I have driven anyone else nuts with this....
Nobel Laureate Sir Peter Medawar insisted* that writing a discussion section separate from the results was akin to pretending that you were unaware of the impact your results have in the field as you're collecting the data.
That's awesome.
Sweet, looking forward to those posts. I feel like I should be doing the same thing, but I keep finding myself hitting the "print" button. . . .Read More
I'd be hopeful to see a bigger, general push towards organic farming. But, the realities of scale and market urinate incessantly upon that hope. For a large supplier that ships out millions of eggs. . .Read More
I understand your point about critical thinking and I also believe that it is not stressed enough in higher education. However, I have had students (first year graduate) who lacked the building . . .Read More
Great post lots to think over. I agree critical thinking is not encouraged. I have had straight A college students in my lab/class that when asked to apply the knowledge they learned in lecture to . . .Read More
I didn't have the numbers, so I looked some up. I was thinking in terms of *number of institutions* not *number of students*. I think the principle would hold for number of students, but quite poss. . .Read More