Comments on: How to Read a Scientific Paper (Top Four Questions) http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/10/readpapers/ Take no prisoners Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:19:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Odds http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/10/readpapers/comment-page-1/#comment-340 Odds Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:09:30 +0000 http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/10/readpapers/#comment-340 Odds <a href="http://pefa235.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Odds</a> Odds Odds

]]> By: hentai henti kimcest http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/10/readpapers/comment-page-1/#comment-339 hentai henti kimcest Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:25:05 +0000 http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/10/readpapers/#comment-339 soul hentai kimcest <a href="http://rollyo.com/hentai-kimcest" rel="nofollow">hentai ville kimcest</a> soul hentai kimcest hentai ville kimcest

]]> By: La pseudo-science est-elle plus performante en matière de communication? | Le blog du Doc’ http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/10/readpapers/comment-page-1/#comment-338 La pseudo-science est-elle plus performante en matière de communication? | Le blog du Doc’ Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:51:36 +0000 http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/10/readpapers/#comment-338 [...] peut, au passage, saluer des initiatives louables d’explication d’une méthode de lecture des articles scientifiques à l’usage de personnes qui n’ont pas forcément de background en sciences. [...] [...] peut, au passage, saluer des initiatives louables d’explication d’une méthode de lecture des articles scientifiques à l’usage de personnes qui n’ont pas forcément de background en sciences. [...]

]]> By: Darth Vasya http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/10/readpapers/comment-page-1/#comment-337 Darth Vasya Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:23:47 +0000 http://thewaronbullshit.com/2007/09/10/readpapers/#comment-337 > You can also google the Journal’s “impact factor.” Higher is better. As it is, this is bad advice. The IF is a more or less good general indicator of journal quality, but! you can't always compare the IFs arbitrarily by their absolute value. A good physics journal might have an IF of, say, 6-something. Nano Letters, for instance, has the highest IF among the journals dedicated to such a popular subject as nanotech-almost 10. A more or less good biological journal can typically have an IF of 20+, while Nature and Science have around 30. At the same time, in some fields, an IF of (seemingly) as little as 2 may be tops. > You can also google the Journal’s “impact factor.” Higher is better.

As it is, this is bad advice. The IF is a more or less good general indicator of journal quality, but! you can’t always compare the IFs arbitrarily by their absolute value. A good physics journal might have an IF of, say, 6-something. Nano Letters, for instance, has the highest IF among the journals dedicated to such a popular subject as nanotech-almost 10. A more or less good biological journal can typically have an IF of 20+, while Nature and Science have around 30. At the same time, in some fields, an IF of (seemingly) as little as 2 may be tops.

]]>