SFNsights2006_9.jpg
SfN 2006 Poster Session
Comments following my first gentle inquiry are very promising! So I’m going to take a shot at the meetup thing. Details after the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve remarked before about a curious duality of the NIH system of support for research conducted in your local University or research institute. A duality that is annoying for grant reviewers. Well, at least one grant reviewer. Your Humble Narrator.

Read the rest of this entry »

In a footnote to a prior post I noted that a single grant reviewer was unlikely to have a very large impact on the fate of a specific NIH grant proposal. I’ve been thinking about this in terms of one of the more technical aspects of grant review as conducted by the NIH study section: voting outside of the range.

Read the rest of this entry »

OpenLaboratory 2008

September 29, 2008

The organizers behind the Open Laboratory anthology project are back again for a third consecutive year. The goal is to collect some of the best science and science-related blog posts from a one-year interval into a print anthology. Those of you who enjoyed reading prior editions of Open Laboratory or Female Science Professor’s collected works (Academeology; available here) will need little argument as to why you might want to be selected for inclusion of a print anthology of blog posts. If you are unfamiliar with such efforts, a description of the creation of the 2006 and 2007 editions of Open Laboratory are worth a read.

Read the rest of this entry »

There has been some interesting discussion over at Blue Lab Coats concerning how to respond to peer reviewer comments on a manuscript submitted to a journal. If a journal editor concludes that a submitted manuscript is potentially suitable for publication, then she will send an e-mail to the corresponding author saying something like this:

Based on the reviews, we will be happy to consider a revised version of your manuscript, in which you should modify the manuscript to address the concerns raised by the reviewers. It is important that you address the reviewers’ concerns in your revised manuscript and also in a point-by-point reply to the reviews that indicates how you have responded to each of the reviewers’ comments.

Suppose that the reviewers have asked for additional experiments that there is no fucking way you are going to perform before resubmission. What are the circumstances under which you can finesse this, and still get your paper accepted?

Read the rest of this entry »

Well that was quick. I was just appreciating that the “Early Stage Investigator” (ESI) designation is significantly different from the older “New Investigator” (NI) designation in NIH-speak. There is now a Guide notice out to clarify.

Read the rest of this entry »

This is an honest question. The following picture has been all over the Sb’ers’ blogs since brought to our attention by one brilliant guy (awaiting permission to link-Update: It was Ed).

Bora titled his post “Oooops!” and called it a gaffe. Ed calls it a “FAIL“. Nick thinks it is “a funny“. The timesonline even picked up the story. [update: forgot to mention the LOLzies thread over at Grrl’s place]
It is a juxtaposition that draws the eye, I’ll grant you. Might even result in a double-take. But many bloggers and their commenters seem to think this is a mistake, gaffe or embarrassment of some kind.
Why?