The blog RetractionWatch investigates accusations of problematic papers across scholarly disciplines and tracks superlatives like most retractions and retractions for Nobel Prize Winners.
Posts are published daily on issues ranging from plagiarism, fraud, conflicts of interest, errors, and misconduct more generally.
Take it from an academic like me that peer review in just over a month is rare and a sign of low-quality editorial work at the journal (the exceptions would be the most open, progressive journals like PCI and similar).
The formatting/style and peer review history alone are enough for me to doubt this. Of course, the other users' points about study design and lack of transparency make it even harder to trust the claims.
They're blue because computer scientist Ben Schneiderman made them blue using research from 1985:
" In 1985, a group of students at the University of Maryland, mentored by computer science professor Ben Shneiderman , conducted a series of experiments to study the impact of different hyperlink colors on user experience. They were eager to determine which color would be the most effective in terms of visibility and readability.
The experiments revealed interesting findings. While red highlighting made the links more noticeable, it negatively affected users' ability to read and comprehend the surrounding text. On the other hand, blue emerged as the clear winner. It was dark enough to be visible against a white background and light enough to stand out on a black background. Most importantly, it did not interfere with users' retention of the text's context."
Mozille should really do better research before posting histories like this. It's easy to overlook the impact of academic research in tech.
I solved my RSI with rest, a vertical mouse, and ZSA Moonlanders. I eventually bought one for home use and one for work use with great performance for the past four years. I can’t imagine going back, especially after replacing the key switches to quieter variants.
The split keyboard opens up the middle of my desk to fit an adjustable stand (Parblo and ElevationLab work well). So I can write and draw by hand if I want.
Sorry, but other academic researchers who have analyzed Langer’s work have found many problems invalidating her claims. These studies have not been independently reproduced and are ludicrous: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2024/10/19/carroll-la...
I would like to point out for context that the author, Jordan Lasker, is a eugenist derided for shoddy science, falsely using university affiliations, and racist commentary.
I do not write this to contradict particular claims in the article above, but @cremieux should be read cautiously.
Yes, a numerate population as assessed by national averages matters. A more numerate population reasons better about economic policies and may vote more wisely. Numeracy is closely tied to the ability to work in a variety of occupations. If we consider probability and statistics, the implications are especially salient.
This is a great start to an evidence database. The next step should be adding evidence and contextual details explaining why each claim is true, perhaps in a table.
I recently used this archive for a course paper and it only took 1-2 days of training and paperwork to get approved.
I don't strictly need this archive anymore, but I recall when the federal layoffs were first being announced that staff were down about it.
As a first-time archives user, this is a major loss to the research community. I met people who flew in from around the country for various projects, working on their graduate degrees and consulting here.
When I used the facilities, I saw signs in multiple areas about people who were caught stealing records and warnings that the consequences are significant (federal crime). But this action is senseless. Their security is very tight with scanning before entering, restrictions on materials and bags that can be brought upstairs, and people monitoring to ensure that special procedures are followed. These places are understaffed and underappreciated. Funding should increase for these national treasures.
"Although darkness has long been associated with insecurity, the link remains speculative. I fill the gap by examining the effect of solar eclipses on political violence. Expanding on psychological theories, I hypothesize that eclipse-induced darkness evokes fear, which in turn is misattributed to outgroups, thereby triggering violence. I contrast this argument with a tactical explanation, suggesting that the darkness allows insurgents to secretly kill civilians. I test these hypotheses by exploiting exogenous variations in the dates and locations of solar eclipses for 1997–2022 in Africa. The analysis indicates a spike in violence on the days of solar eclipses. To explore the mechanisms, I examine the initiators and original texts of violent events, weather conditions, ethnic folklore, and individual-level surveys. The analyses consistently support the tactical rather than psychological explanation. These findings warn against assuming that “irrational” African people overreacted to eclipses; insurgents rationally used darkness for their purposes."
Perfectly said. Before attempting to solve a problem, it's important to consider the lenses/perspectives and that facts that you'll see nails everywhere with your hammers.
Peer review can be more structured, is already blinded in many cases, and could benefit from regular crowdsourced suggestions from a variety of scholars. In many cases, journals have begun many reform practices like valuing open sharing of materials and code, structured transparency checklists, and opportunities to publish null results. All wonderful advances that don't require hammers.
Posts are published daily on issues ranging from plagiarism, fraud, conflicts of interest, errors, and misconduct more generally.
https://retractionwatch.com/