₦airaland Forum

iragbijile:
So you've been watching? huh?

hmmmmmm

He is a basic scientist I think. Most likely working for Schering plough or Johnson & Johnson, they all start there anyway.

davidylan:
then on what basis are you making a comparison? Grandiosity of titles? Using journals as a standard even makes your point more baseless . . . some far better papers have been published in cell or MCB. Does that invalidate the work because it didnt make its way to Nature?

lol its clear this guy doesnt know what he's talking about. At least he was smart enough to add the "i could be wrong" tag to his piffle.

davidylan:
toxicology.

iragbijile:
Anyhow, regarding your analysis on journal quality, i agree with you, but as you can tell, most of what I typed are half truths just so I could deflate ZnO's ego a lil, Me and SEFAGO do that all the time to ZnO aka Nchara. And he does that too. He tries to rubish anything Yoruba and we do the same to him. Its just fun. I actually know more than I am revealing.

Kobojunkie:
Not true. No, some programs require PHDs to have published at least one paper. And this is even for those who are in industry.

Kobojunkie:
She is a PHD right? Last I checked, most all Phd are REQUIRED to author/co-author papers, and at least get some of them published . 

Seun:
She's not a researcher, she's an administrator and a very good one.  She knows what she needs to know.

davidylan:
I understand where his ignorance stems from. Most scientists are used to a publications within their niche and so every other paper out there is regarded as "low quality" with the exception of Science and Nature.

Unfortunately many have no idea that "impact factor" is an arbitrary number that is influenced by several factors such as ;

a. number of publications per edition - Nature and Science publish much fewer papers and also publish LESS FREQUENTLY . . . that is the reason their impact factor is so high because more people are reading each journal published. Journals that publish way more papers and publish on a weekly basis for example will have a correspondingly lower impact factor BECAUSE they are more readily available.

b. Frequency of publishing editions

c. Range of acceptable publications. Many less known journals are just that because they focus on a narrow niche. Science, nature and co are more well known because they publish across a wider range.

davidylan:
lol the ignorant fool called Iragbijile here to sully his already muddied name again?

Depends. High quality YOUNG investigators may publish close to 5 papers a year depending on the size of their lab. The reason a lot of investigators publishing in journals like Nature or Science publish so few is because those journals require VERY EXTENSIVE and THOROUGH research that it can take over 2 yrs just to get ONE paper through the review process. Geddit now fool?

Ok this was where i stopped reading and nearly choked on my breakfast. Now let me school this slowpoke:

In a typical publication;

1. The FIRST AUTHOR is the PRIMARY producer of at least 80% of the data supporting the conclusions in the paper. The first author is most often the person who provides the first draft of the paper.

2. The last author is TYPICALLY the mentor of the first author and in MOST cases provides very little oversight for the paper. His job most often is limited to editing the final draft before submission.

3. In cases of paper revision, allegations of scientific misconduct or in rare cases where the paper demands for the raw data . . . the FIRST AUTHOR is held primarily responsible as he/she is regarded as the OWNER of the data. This would not be so if, as the fool iragbijile claims, the first author is only washing dishes!

4. The second to the last author is most often the LEAST RELEVANT individual on the paper. From my experience, they are either:
a. a popular scientist the first author or mentor wishes to add to enhance recognition of the paper,
b. a student/post-doc with minimal contributions to the paper who is included to "make everyone happy"
c. a fellow professor who provided resources for some of the experiments in the paper

Folks like Iragbijile should ACTUALLY publish a paper first before bleating.

Huh?

The 3rd most read journal behind science and nature for chemisty in 2004? and no less than number 6 for molecular biology?

A paper PUBLISHED weekly with an impact factor of 9.7?

huh? Who is this fool?

hmm with an impact factor of 33, the lancet ranks second only to NEJM. Dude try and read.

iragbijile:
That is because most of them are of very low quality.

Low quality is in the eyes of the beholder. Go back to the journal websites and read their rankings relative to journals publishing similar articles

Most high quality investigators dont publish more than 1 or 2 a year, well, except if you are in social science or crop science where it is  quantity over quality.

Depends on how many people you work with and the facilities at your disposal.. More staff more output


In papers with multiple authors, I only care most about the last author and the second to the last author. The last author often gets the most credit because he or she is assumed to be the driving force,both intellectually and[b] financially,[/b] behind the research. You being first author tells me you are most likely a 'gift' author and inconsequential in the research process, your contribution was most likely limited to washing test-tubes, entering data and general up keep of the lab. I don't envy you at all.

Lies and half truths. What matters is the first author who is also the corresponding author. In my case, I am a co-PI, first author, corresponding author, and wrote the papers (the ones I am first author). What matters is who did the significant experiments, who wrote the paper and who planned the studies all of which I did, except  for some of the experiments conducted by my technicians under my supervision.. What matters is whose email address/phone number is on the paper that interested scientists can contact for questions and possible collaboration. Mine was/is the one.

You are so ignorant that you do not even know that scientists do not fund their own research. Everyone writes a proposal for grants and submit to some funding body and the best is approved and funded. Proper motor park tout, na him you be


PNAS? Only fools regard PNAS as highly as you do.

PNAS has an impact factor of 9+. It is the journal of the American Academy of Sciences- the greatest national academy of Science in the world. Only an ignorant fool will describe it the way you have done.. My movement from postdoc to tenure track had a lot to do with this particular paper.





These are very low quality journals.

Depends on you with your irredeemable ignorance. ACS journals (E S & T) as well as Plant Physiology, and Plant Cell and Environment are the best in their calling.

iragbijile:
I can understand why you are bowled over by the article, YOU have never published anything in your life, something tangible to publish,

iragbijile:
Most of the papers are not research papers, they are just opinions.

And she has never published an opinion by herself, it is always with someone else.

I really dont see the big deal in the paper published, they are all of very low quality.