New Mars Express And Huygens Results, ESA conference - November 30, 2005 |
New Mars Express And Huygens Results, ESA conference - November 30, 2005 |
Guest_paulanderson_* |
Nov 22 2005, 06:15 PM
Post
#1
|
Guests |
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMA96ULWFE_index_0.html
Relating to Mars Express: "At the same time, ESA’s Mars Express mission is continuing its investigations of Mars, painting a new picture of the 'red planet'. This includes the first ever probing below the surface of Mars, new geological clues with implications for the climate, newly-discovered surface and atmospheric features and, above all, traces of the presence of water on this world." |
|
|
Nov 30 2005, 06:18 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 356 Joined: 12-March 05 Member No.: 190 |
I have access to Nature.....Shall I do something naughty? or will that merely cause headaches for Doug... in which case I obviously won't do it...
|
|
|
Nov 30 2005, 08:22 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 350 Joined: 20-June 04 From: Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. Member No.: 86 |
I was going to defend Nature's charging to view exclusive reports and data, but why do they charge, exactly? Is it because they provide a service by filtering out the 'bad' reports and data? Or is it just that magazines like Nature are obsolete in today's widely Internet-enabled world? Why don't these science teams just self-publish the data on some website they control?
|
|
|
Nov 30 2005, 08:33 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
QUOTE (mike @ Nov 30 2005, 12:22 PM) I was going to defend Nature's charging to view exclusive reports and data, but why do they charge, exactly? Is it because they provide a service by filtering out the 'bad' reports and data? Or is it just that magazines like Nature are obsolete in today's widely Internet-enabled world? Why don't these science teams just self-publish the data on some website they control? Two words: peer review. Anybody can publish anything on the Internet. And they do. Publications like Science, Nature, the Journal of Geophysical Research, etc. separate the wheat from the chaff. When a paper is submitted, it is either rejected outright or sent out to other scientists in the same field for review. The reviewers make lots of comments on the paper and advise the publisher whether it should be considered for publication, or should be revised and resubmitted for a second review, or rejected. The original authors revise the paper and at length it may be accepted for publication. This process provides a seal of approval to published papers indicating that their arguments have been read and accepted as valid by a scientist's peers, and prevents a lot of junk from being published. Of course there are drawbacks as well; the process can take a long time (sometimes more than 2 years from initial submission to publication, though Nature and Science are much quicker), and of course it tends to punish radical new ideas. But what that means is that people have to come up with a rock-solid case to prove an extraordinary claim, and that's not necessarily bad. Having a paper published in a top journal is an incredibly important thing for a researcher's status in his or her field. The more refereed publications you have (as opposed to un-reviewed publications like abstracts presented at conferences), the more likely you are to be tenured, to be successful in grant applications, etc. --Emily -------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Nov 30 2005, 09:53 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 112 Joined: 17-November 05 From: Canberra Member No.: 558 |
Publishing in Nature achieves several things. First, it validates your work. Not the data itself, but your interpretation of that data, which is subject to independent peer review. Second, it ensures that your work goes how to a wide audience, hundreds of thosuands of people read Nature, all the science news sites quote Nature. Ditto for Science Third, it is a permanent record, not only is Nature (or any other journal) archived electronically, paper copies exist in thousands of libraries round the world. Even your research group or even the journal were to fold tomorrow, people could still locate your work one hundred years from now.
Publishing on the web does not achieve any of this. Most web published artciles are not peer reviewed, when they are, there is a perception that it is not independent, people will get their mates to do it. There are so many web pages out there that unless people know what to look for the site has a low profile. Lastly web sites are ephemeral, many journals will not accept web links for precisely this reason, in addition to those above. Impact is critical in science careers. If you publish in, for example Nature, your paper will be regarded as having a high impact. Publish in what is perceived lesser journal and it will have a lower impact. Self publish on the web and it will probably have a negative impact. Positions, scholarships, and grants can all depend on the impact of your work. That is why people publish their studies in recognised refereed journals. Jon |
|
|
Dec 1 2005, 10:31 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Dublin Correspondent Group: Admin Posts: 1799 Joined: 28-March 05 From: Celbridge, Ireland Member No.: 220 |
QUOTE (JonClarke @ Nov 30 2005, 10:53 PM) Lastly web sites are ephemeral, many journals will not accept web links for precisely this reason, in addition to those above. + much very valid comment deleted for brevity. Yes the web is ephemeral but there is still an enormous benefit to be had from openly publishing scientific material online and early. The archival problem needs to be addressed for stuff that merit but even without that making this stuff available for searching and online cross referencing has an enormous benefit. There is simply too much knowledge out there locked into paper and that needs to change. I was astonished to read this editorial from Nature. Clearly they are not as locked into the concept of old media as I had thought, my apologies. |
|
|
Dec 2 2005, 01:07 AM
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 112 Joined: 17-November 05 From: Canberra Member No.: 558 |
QUOTE (helvick @ Dec 1 2005, 10:31 PM) + much very valid comment deleted for brevity. Yes the web is ephemeral but there is still an enormous benefit to be had from openly publishing scientific material online and early. The archival problem needs to be addressed for stuff that merit but even without that making this stuff available for searching and online cross referencing has an enormous benefit. There is simply too much knowledge out there locked into paper and that needs to change. That is why conference abstracts are a such a good idea, they quickly get the information out that would otherwise take months or longer. there have been about a score full ME papers for example, but well over 100 absstracts. These are generally available on line these days, even before the conference. For the final public study the results still need to be fully and independently reviewed. This can take a year or more. The period between acceptance and actual hard copy can be frustrating, and is longer than anyone would like, but it is hardly critical. the sky isn't going to fall in because a paper becomes available 6 months after the review process is complete, rather than 2 months. As for paper knowledge being locked away, I disagree. Providing they are catalogued I can access paper knowledge from anywhere in the world within a few weeks. This is much more reliable that a web site which is here today and may be gone tomorow. But then, I am perhaps spoiled by access to an excellent library! Death of print? Yeah right. We have heard this before. But we digress from the point, of this thread, which is these amazing results in these two papers and the report on the web site. I really like the image on the ESA site (not in the nature paper) which shows the false colour OMEGA data draped over a 20 m resolution DEM derived from HRSC. you can see the compositional trends in individual beds. There must be a lot more of this stuff in press. The 20 m HRSC DEM is a very powerful tool. You can drape any data set over it and see what the combination shows. For example, the 3 m resolution MOC images or THEMIS. I saw some nice stuff along these lines at the EGU some 6 months ago, so hopefully this will be coming out soon. Jon |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th September 2024 - 07:06 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |