the increasingly multidisciplinary nature of many areas of biology are causing this. interdisciplinary studies were always supposed to be done by multidisciplinary groups of individuals each doing their part in the grander project. with the increasing numbers of people who are trained in multidiscplinary fields (e.g. environental science, bioinformatics, etc.), many studies that once were done my multiple people can be done by one or two. The idea that huge datasets are a hinderance or mansions of straw is certainly at the fringe of statistical and scientific thought. I do, however, feel the attempt to make a paper the "whole story" slows science. IT is this desire that creates the scenario you had to wade through. When everyone is trying to publish the coplete story, some of those people die, change jobs, get furlowed, and piles of publishable work goes unpublished as a result. It would be better in my opinion, if people published each experiment as it was completed. then, followed up the series of experiments with a capstone review article that pulled together all those miscellany. This way, findings would not be lost due to the whims of life and time that frequently become hazards for scientists in all fields. science moves faster when publishing is regular. Imagine if Darwin had published each of those observations one after another, then released his book bringing it all together. He might not have had to share the limelight with the father of biogeography!
progress is difficult for everyone, and the extreme changes in data quantity and analysis undoubtedly mirror what happened with the introduction of genetics in the 1960s and the proliferation of molecular methods. I suspect that those early biologists reviewing papers with new complicated molecular methods and ideas found themselves in much the say quagmire you relate with the data. In the end, molecular biology proved to be a revolution that answered a multitude of questions and revealed things we could never have imagined prior. The big data problems are doing this same kind of thing, often with genetic data, but also with piles of environmental data that previously could not have been analyzed due to its formidable size. I really do think these new developments are good things, even though many of us find the quantity of data and analyses formidable. However, I am pretty biased in my views here because I have been working with internet query data that is pretty voluminous, biodiversity and paleontological calculations, and am just starting a five-year research collaboration in environmental genomics. not quite the data volumes others work with, but it sure is a lot of data! :) Malcolm On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:38 PM, David Duffy <[email protected]> wrote: > "Overly broad claims push the peer-review system past its limit. Although > I am a seasoned reviewer, I find it difficult to wade through the > increasing amount of data in papers, and often encounter material where I > am not an expert. If this trend continues, it will be necessary to take > mini-sabbaticals to review papers. Editors might successfully gather > reviewers with complementary backgrounds to examine such broad papers, but > they do so at the expense of having multiple experts scrutinize the same > experiments. And I worry that the supplemental section, which reviewers > tend to inspect less thoroughly, can be used to bury weak data." > > > http://www.nature.com/news/publish-houses-of-brick-not- > mansions-of-straw-1.22029?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20170525& > spMailingID=54132792&spUserID=MzUwNzYwMDk5OTgS1&spJobID= > 1164061838&spReportId=MTE2NDA2MTgzOAS2 > > -- > David Duffy > 戴大偉 (Dài Dàwěi) > Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit/Makamakaʻāinana > Botany > University of Hawaii/*Ke Kulanui o Hawaiʻi* > 3190 Maile Way > Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA > 1-808-956-8218 > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Aquaculture and Water Quality Research Scientist School of Agriculture and Applied Sciences Langston University Langston, Oklahoma Link to online CV and portfolio : https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO Google Scholar citation page: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=lOHMjvYAAAAJ&hl=en Academia.edu: https://ui-springfield.academia.edu/MalcolmMcCallum/Analytics#/activity/overview?_k=wknchj Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Malcolm_Mccallum/reputation?ev=prf_rep_tab <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Malcolm_Mccallum/reputation?ev=prf_rep_tab> Ratemyprofessor: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=706874 *Confidentiality Notice:* This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. “*Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.* ” *-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law.* "*Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive*" -* Allan Nation* *1880's: *"*There's lots of good fish in the sea*" W.S. Gilbert *1990's:* Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction *MAY* help restore populations. 2022: "Soylent Green is People!" Charleton Heston as Detective Thorn 2022: "People were always awful, but their was a world once, and it was beautiful.' Edward G. Robinson as Sol Roth. The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle
