Our www.neurodesk.org paper was featured in Nature Methods today: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-023-02145-x
Neurodesk is a game-changer for accessible, flexible, and reproducible neuroimaging analysis across computing environments! đź§ đź’»
| Website | http://danielhoops.com/ |
| https://twitter.com/DanHoops |
Our www.neurodesk.org paper was featured in Nature Methods today: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-023-02145-x
Neurodesk is a game-changer for accessible, flexible, and reproducible neuroimaging analysis across computing environments! đź§ đź’»
@somuchpingle This has been bugging me for a while, but I've always felt too sheepish to say anything. Until now, I guess...
I believe this is R. uakarii, not R. varabilis...
This is an excellent piece on the precarious state of Canadian science, including interviews with two leaders of #SupportOurScience. The Trudeau government can talk all they want about their “historic level of support for science and research,” but the foundation is rotting. The base funding to support students and postdocs has been stagnant for over 20 years.
This article, in @Nature, is called “Japanese research no longer world class — here's why”: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03290-1
But it could be called “Australian research in danger from underfunding & time fragmentation”.
This bit sounds eerily familiar👇
We’re all aware of chronic research underfunding in Australia over the past decade.
But many unis seem to regard a “40 / 40 / 20” time split of research / teaching / admin as a luxurious goal. In this report, drop from 47 to 33% research characterises doom. 40% isn’t enough.
Recently I did a review where the code was not included with the manuscript, so I requested it, received it, saw it was not good, and completely rewrote the analysis. All for free.
That was for a non-profit publisher. I've started requesting a $450 consulting fee to review for for-profit publishers. SO far, they've all prefered to find another reviewer than to pay me...