Salvaged from an early Feb 2016 Google+ posting: A vision researcher discussion happened on a semi-private email group (CVnet), but you can see some discussion on the visionlist archive (by moving around here: http://visionscience.com/pipermail/visionlist/2016/009312.html ), and below you can see the results of the survey.
A post from 27 Feb 2016 salvaged from Google+: A discussion about the high author fees charged by some #openaccess journals brought up many other issues, some of which were included in a survey. Nearly 400 vision researchers responded to the survey, of which 93% expressed desire for change.
An old post salvaged from the dying Google+: Is red special? There’s a big literature on this, but I haven’t seen any studies investigate this with quality methodology. A number of studies purport to investigate whether the color red is special, like whether “red test materials lower performance”. Two problems: 1) these studies may be impossible to replicate because the authors tend not to report the colors in a device-independent fashion!
An old post salvaged from the dying Google+ I used to think diagrams like the above were probably accurate in showing dichromats, like dogs, having a gradient between only two qualitatively distinct colors at most (of course, what those particular colors are qualitatively is unknowable; surely they don’t feel like our blue and yellow). But from Wachtler, Dohrmann, &
Several European funders announced planS, which suggests that several European nations will ban grantees form publishing in paywalled journals (including hybrid journals that allow one to make an article open access for a fee), and that includes many society journals that are owned by societies but published by large subscription-based publishers. This is to begin in 2020.
The below, a letter to my department, is a brief primer for researchers on pre/postprint posting, with some comments on the evolving scholarly publication landscape. Dear colleagues, In last week’s School Research Committee meeting, the topic of publishing open access came up, and our Head of School asked me to send you an email about one solution in particular.
Perhaps the rumors of Anne Treisman’s passing are greatly exaggerated. I hope they are [UPDATE: I’ve gotten confirmation they sadly aren’t]. Regardless, in this era of lists of most-influential psychologists that do not include her, it is a good time to reflect on her influence.
On twitter I floated this partial solution to the problem of predatory journals, which I’ll add to here. If you’ve been in a field for a couple years, then you’re familiar with the journals that most of its research is published in. If you came across a journal that was new to you, you’d probably scrutinise its content and its editorial board before publishing in it, and you’d probably notice if something were a bit dodgy about that journal.
Was that a shift of attention or binding in a buffer? Charles J. H. Ludowici; Alex O. Holcombe (presented by Alex) 3:50-4:05 PM Friday 10 November, West Meeting Room 118-120 Cueing a stimulus can boost the rate of success reporting it. This is usually thought to reflect a time-consuming attention shift to the stimulus location.
Hoisted from the comments on Scott Alexander’s ethics/IRB nightmare, an insight I hadn’t seen before: And, to bring home again the absurdity: