Makes one wonder how many claims of oscillatory phenomena in the brain are actually artifacts.
"... shuffling in time leads us to conclude that behavior is rhythmic even when behavior is generated using a purely aperiodic process."
Every time I fill in a reimbursement form for what amounts to pennies, articulate a justification or a dispensation for a purchase, write half a dozen emails for something that costs £70 (not counting the time of those involved), or write a "PDR" for a lab member who is leaving in a couple months, or do another compulsory training course on a topic I could have written a scholarly paper about it myself, I think of #MaxPerutz's statement above.
The academic scientific enterprise could be organised so much more effectively. Start by evaluating scientists by what they have done, not what they will do; the rest unfolds from that and leads to enormous savings in time (for scientists) and money (far less admin costs).
Government, funding bodies, are you listening? Are you ready to let go, and evaluate scientists on past work, and save hundreds of millions in the process? Or better yet, reallocate them to science itself for an even bigger impact?
Makes one wonder how many claims of oscillatory phenomena in the brain are actually artifacts.
"... shuffling in time leads us to conclude that behavior is rhythmic even when behavior is generated using a purely aperiodic process."
NeuroImage editors have resigned over the high publication fee, and are starting a new non-profit journal
We're tootin' mad and we're not gonna take it anymore! Never imagined this would be my first post on Mastodon:
The entire editorial team at #NeuroImage, including myself, resigned today after #Elsevier refused to negotiate on their absurdly high publishing fees.
Are you *IN* with us? Authors, reviewers, and readers – please follow us to #ImagingNeuroscience!
https://imaging-neuroscience.org