Reading #5--More on reading the literature

 I just had an experience of a type I mentioned in Reading #2.  I am working on the Navajo Sandstone, which is the deposit of an ancient desert (actually, the largest sand desert in Earth history--if you've been to Zion National Park, you've seen the Navajo Sandstone).  I recently got interested in what I thought was a rather small problem, a curiosity, really.  I thought it might make a neat little paper of interest but no huge significance.  Turns out it is not a small problem at all and has turned out to be potentially way more important than I had guessed.  In geology, we spend a lot of time scouring the literature for other examples of what we observe in an effort to learn more about how to interpret what we're seeing.  So far, I haven't found any other examples.  That, in itself, is pretty exciting because it means that figuring out why we're seeing what we're seeing is turning out to be a lot more challenging than I anticipated.

But that isn't what this blog is about.  In Reading #2, I alluded to the fact that it's important to read the literature to make sure there aren't arguments against what you think is going on, not just arguments in support of your ideas.  I was actually thinking about taking the lazy route and just eliding this because "everyone knows this", but gritted my teeth and dug into the literature.  What I found surprised me.  While it didn't exactly blow up my idea, it did cause me to hedge my bets and reevaluate some of what I'm seeing.  The paper is going to be way stronger for that effort.  What I thought "everyone knows" turns out to be a lot more complex and subtle.  And that is exciting science.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reviewing #7--To sign or not to sign?

Whether you sign your reviews is a personal decision, and I would never question someone who decides on anonymity.  But, here's my take on it.  I decided from my first review request, which must have been some time in the early or mid-1980s, to sign all my reviews.  I did this despite the fact that most people opted for anonymity and many women often concealed their sex by using only initials (I also decided to publish using my full name). I made this decision for one reason.  I felt (and still feel) that if I were critical of someone's work, I should have the courage of my convictions.  Science is supposed to be a free exchange of ideas, and hiding behind anonymity in reviews is not, in my mind, conducive to that kind of transparency.  I would sign my reviews of NSF proposals, if NSF would let me (they will not allow you to sign, and will strip out any attempt to do so). I cannot know what I don't know, so I have no idea if this decision has ha...
Read more

Reviewing #2--What makes a good review?

The most important task for a reviewer is to do a good review.  By "good", I mean constructive and as comprehensive as you have time for but comprehensive enough (see "constructive"). Don't pull your punches, but don't be sarcastic or dismissive, either.  One would think this would go without saying, but it's not.  So what do I mean when I say "don't pull your punches"? Human nature is such that we read the good and ignore the bad.  If you wrap all the negative comments in cotton, the author(s) will misread them or won't take them seriously.  So it's best to just be straightforward and candid.  Explain what the problem is and why it's a problem (and there may be multiple problems).  And, if you are so inclined, suggest a solution.  If you cite references, be sure to provide them. Basically, follow the Golden Rule.  Ask yourself if your review will either help the author(s) improve the manuscript, or if the manuscript cann...
Read more

Reviewing #3--Why should I review papers?

Let's face it, reviewing even short papers is time consuming, and time is at a premium.  There is little reward. Reviewing can have a direct impact on your career in only two instances I can think of. One is, if you're going up for tenure and have reviewed papers for major journals and still managed to excel in other respects, that's a feather in your cap.  Being invited to review papers for major journals early in your career looks good on the CV (or resume).  After all, it may mean someone outside your university knows who you are and respects you (or someone inside your university recommended you--either way, it's good).  The other instance is after tenure.  If your CV does not show that you have done any reviewing, it can be a bit negative because of the expectation that you should be using your expertise to give back to the community. But those impacts are low.  No one is denied tenure or further promotion and pay raises because they didn't do any ...
Read more