Academia has a problem: the value, necessity, and practices of collaboration are increasing, but the system of giving credit is inadequate. In most fields, there are only 4 levels of credit:
- None at all
- “Our thanks to Jill for sharing her data.” (a note of thanks)
- First Authorship (This is ambiguous: it may be alphabetical.)
- Listed as another author
In contrast to this paucity, modern empirical paper writing has many roles. Here are a dozen roles. Not all of them are important on a single paper, but each of them is important in some papers.
- Intellectual leadership.
- Source of the original idea
- Doing the writing
- Writing various parts, e.g. literature review
- Doing the grunt work on the stat analysis. (Writing and running the R code)
- Doing the grunt work of finalizing for publication. (Much easier than it used to be!)
- Dealing with revisions, exchanges with editors, etc.
- Source of the data.
- Raised the funding;
- Runs the lab where the authors are employed
- Source of the money: usually an agency or foundation, but sometimes the contracting author is listed as a coauthor.
I recently received the following on a Dave Farber’s “Interesting People” list, a collection of techies with interest in Internet policy issues. Why discuss it now, since the tax bill has been passed? It is important for all to realize how much the Republicans in Washington no longer believe in basing their decisions on reality (“facts”). It is very hard to believe this, but the evidence is now overwhelming, and the consequences will continue to be grave. I wrote the following quick response.
It seems completely reasonable and even desirable to take actions such as lowering corp taxes, lowering taxes on productivity and reducing regulation to get the economy growing at the 3-4% range.
Gina Kolata in the NY Times has been running a good series of articles on fraudulent academic publishing. The basic business model is an unholy alliance between academics looking to enhance their resumes, and quick-buck internet sites. Initially, I thought these sites were enticing naive academics. But many academics are apparently willing participants, suggesting that it’s easy to fool many promotion and award committees.
All but one academic in 10 who won a School of Business and Economics award had published papers in these journals. One had 10 such articles.
When my colleagues and I developed the theory of real time electricity prices back in the dark ages (1982), we were amused to see that our equations allowed for the optimal price to be negative. Power companies would pay consumers to use more electricity! At the time, we thought it was a paradoxical case that was unlikely in practice, except possibly in the middle of the night in systems with lots of nuclear units.
Fast forward 30 years, and negative prices are a regular occurrence in real systems, including in Texas and California. And now they are even happing in the middle of the day. But there is still a puzzle: why don’t generators stop generating the moment the price goes negative?
Several blog posts from Berkeley’s great Energy Institute, and my response to one of them, show that real power systems can have a lot of unanticipated phenomena. Take together, these probably explain these apparently strange behaviors.
Source: Is Solar Really the Reason for Negative Electricity Prices? – Energy Institute Blog. and from Catherine Wolfram, Is the Duck Sinking?
TL;DR In Southern California should put PV on houses and buildings that are far from the coast, because coastal areas are cloudy much of the summer. But the actual pattern is the opposite. I estimate a 30% magnitude of loss. Even my employer, UCSD, has engaged in this foolishness in order to appear trendy.
The bumpiness of this graph shows the effects of coastal weather in August.
SC overturns Lexmark’s patent win on used printer cartridges. Since the 17th century, restricting resale has been “against Trade and Traffique.”
Source: Supreme Court overturns Lexmark’s patent win on used printer cartridges | Ars Technica
Summary: once a product is sold, the original patent holder can’t control how it is subsequently used.
Not the only seller.
Today’s ruling is a win for many tech companies, with companies like Vizio, Dell, Intel, LG Electronics, HTC, and Western Digital all taking the side of Impression Products. [the winner] …The companies on Lexmark’s side, no surprise, were heavy licensers of patents, including tech giants like Qualcomm, IBM, Nokia, and Dolby. Biotechnology and pharmaceutical groups also supported Lexmark. Those lineups largely mirror industry divisions over Congressional debates around reforming patent laws, with the pro-Impression companies favoring user-friendly changes to patent laws, and the pro-Lexmark companies wanting more changes that favor patent owners.
I often gripe about the Supreme Court’s seeming “go with the big $” jurisprudence. But in this case, there was plenty of corporate power on both sides. And the 7-1 verdict means it was not a close call.
One of my students reported that he was having trouble finding my lecture notes from this course, so I am putting them in one place. I will update this for the last few classes.
Some of the aviation discussions are not yet here.