Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust (Les Bernstein )

Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust From: Les Bernstein <lbernstein@xxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 10:14:45 -0400 --------------hRqkuGtVL0N5fp9wYEo0k0D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by edgeum4.it.mcgill.ca id 34OEF1If119739 Bravo, Alain!=C2=A0 Thank you for saving me from crafting a longer post.=C2= =A0 I=20 agree , wholeheartedly, with your take on the value of peer review. Your=20 notion that the advantages of peer review are orthogonal to the business=20 models of the journals, is, as I see it, both right on target and a=20 crucial point.=C2=A0 I place little value, both as an author and a reader= , in=20 "pre-prints." Brian Katz also captured aspects of my point of view quite well: "[A]=20 Pre-print is an unreviewed un-published work, only submitted elsewhere=20 for consideration. It has no more reference value than a blog, and maybe=20 should be re-termed as such. Any results are therefore to be taken with=20 a grain of salt, as with many conference papers which lack any=20 significant review process."=C2=A0 If one wishes to establish "primacy," = then=20 give talks and interact with colleagues.=C2=A0 Our field is not so large=20 that, at least in my experience, getting scooped is an issue.=C2=A0 I=20 understand that others may have had different experience but, across my=20 entire career, not once has that been an problem (perhaps, because no=20 one else was interested in what I was doing =F0=9F=99=82). Based on my experience reading pre-prints, they are the last format to=20 which I would direct students.=C2=A0 That's because, often, I have found = them=20 to be sophisticated drafts of manuscripts that contain all manner of=20 errors and questionable conclusions.=C2=A0 As I see it, they are not a=20 valuable resource for one who is attempting to learn about the field and=20 develop a highly-informed, integrated set of knowledge.=C2=A0 I view=20 pre-prints as another contributor to what I see as a general erosion of=20 scientific rigor.=C2=A0 I understand and accept that many might disagree. As regular readers of this list know, I rarely post responses.=C2=A0 In t= his=20 case, I felt compelled to contribute because of what I perceive to be=20 the importance of the topic. Les --=20 *Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. **| *Professor Emeritus Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of=20 Medicine 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401 Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495 On 5/24/2023 4:26 AM, Alain de Cheveigne wrote: > *** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, openi= ng attachments or clicking on links. *** > > Hi Jonathan, all, > > Here's a different perspective. > > First of all, the issue of peer review should be distinguished from tha= t of publishers shaving the wool off our backs (more below). > > Peer review offers functions that we miss out on in the preprint model.= Weeding out junk is one, improving papers (and the ideas in them) is ano= ther. A third is reducing the bulk of things to read. > > The last might seem counterintuitive: surely, more is better? The thin= g is, we have limited time and cognitive bandwidth. Lack of time is the m= ajor obstacle to keeping abreast, and lack of time of the potential audie= nce is what prevents our ideas having an impact. You painstakingly work t= o solve a major problem in the field, write it up carefully, and no one n= otices because attention is carried away by the tweet cycle. > > The review/journal model helps in several ways. First, by prioritizing = things to read (as an alternative to the random - or otherwise biased - s= election induced by lack of time). Second, by improving the readability = of the papers: more readable means less time per paper means more attenti= on for other papers - including possibly yours. Third, by organizing - ho= wever imperfectly - the field. > > For example, you can (or could) keep abreast of a topic in acoustics by= scanning JASA and a few other journals. With the preprint/twitter model = the 'field' risks being shattered into micro-fields, bubbles, or cliques. > > My experience of the review process is - as everyone's - mixed. I reme= mber intense frustration at the reviewer's dumbness, and despair at ever = getting published. I also remember what I learned in the process. Almost= invariably, my papers were improved by orders of magnitude (not just inc= rementally). > > I also spend a lot of time reviewing. I find it a painful process, as i= t involves reading (I'm a bit dyslexic), and trying to understand what is= written and - to be helpful to the author - what the author had in mind = and how he/she could better formulate it to get the message across, and a= void wasting the time of - hopefully - countless readers. It does involve= weeding out some junk too. > > Science is not just about making new discoveries or coming up with radi= cally new ideas. These are few and far between. Rather, it's a slow proce= ss of building on other people's ideas, digesting, tearing down, clearing= the rubble, and building some more. The review process makes the edifice= more likely to stand. Journals play an important role in this accumulati= on, even if most content is antiquated and boring. It's a miracle that so= me journals have done this over decades, even centuries. > > Which brings back to the issue of money, impact factors, and careers. = Lots to say about that, mostly depressing, but mainly orthogonal from the= peer-review issue. > > Alain > > > > > >> On 23 May 2023, at 13:54, Jonathan Z Simon<jzsimon@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Matt, >> >> In this context I would avoid the term =E2=80=9Cpublishing=E2=80=9D, s= ince that has such a different meaning for so many people, but I personal= ly do take advantage of posting preprints on a public server (like arXiv)= almost every chance I get. >> >> Preprints (preprint =3D a fully written paper that is not (yet) publis= hed) have been useful for many decades, originally in physics, as a way o= f getting one's research results out in a timely manner. Other key benefi= ts are that it establishes primacy of the research findings, that it is c= itable in other researchers' papers, and that it can be promoted by socia= l media such as this listserve (more below on this). But the biggest bene= fit is typically getting the paper out into the world for others to learn= from, without having to wait based on the whims of publishers and indivi= dual reviewers. If most of your published papers get accepted eventually,= and the most important findings don=E2=80=99t get cut in the review proc= ess, then preprints are something you should definitely consider. Reviewe= rs often make published papers better, but maybe not so much better that = it=E2=80=99s worth waiting many months for others to see your results. >> >> arXiv is the oldest website for posting preprints, and if its Audio an= d Speech section is active, that might be a good place to post your prepr= ints. But there may be other options for you. As an auditory neuroscienti= st I typically use bioRxiv (e.g., "Changes in Cortical Directional Connec= tivity during Difficult Listening in Younger and Older Adults=E2=80=9D<ht= tps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05= .19.541500__;!!Cn_UX_p3!kFiRWQEegTNQdy1Ansa9h3JyDYE11HFCa1dc0ivav-YtNjO5e= 3j_ubj8qWBH74n7MQLs_tQdqS60bkntxsk1VxGmQSHzdpo$=20 >> >), but I also use PsyArXiv if the topic is more perceptual than neura= l (e.g., =E2=80=9CAttention Mobilization as a Modulator of Listening Effo= rt: Evidence from Pupillometry=E2=80=9D<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https= ://psyarxiv.com/u5xw2__;!!Cn_UX_p3!kFiRWQEegTNQdy1Ansa9h3JyDYE11HFCa1dc0i= vav-YtNjO5e3j_ubj8qWBH74n7MQLs_tQdqS60bkntxsk1VxGmdmzYTxc$=20 >> >). [See what I mean about promoting your research on social media?] >> >> I=E2=80=99m sure others have opinions too. >> >> Jonathan >> >> >>> On May 22, 2023, at 6:45 PM, Matt Flax<flatmax@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Is anyone publishing on arXiv at the moment ? It seems that to publis= h there they rely on a web of trust. >>> >>> There is an Audio and Speech section of arXiv which would suit our co= mmunity. >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> Matt >> -- >> Jonathan Z. Simon (he/him) >> University of Maryland >> Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering / Dept. of Biology / Instit= ute for Systems Research >> 8223 Paint Branch Dr. >> College Park, MD 20742 USA >> Office: 1-301-405-3645, Lab: 1-301-405-9604, Fax: 1-301-314-9281 >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.isr.umd.edu/Labs/CSSL/simonlab/= __;!!Cn_UX_p3!kFiRWQEegTNQdy1Ansa9h3JyDYE11HFCa1dc0ivav-YtNjO5e3j_ubj8qWB= H74n7MQLs_tQdqS60bkntxsk1VxGm-oG2HQs$ >> >> --=20 *Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. **| *Professor Emeritus Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of=20 Medicine 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401 Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495 --------------hRqkuGtVL0N5fp9wYEo0k0D0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------s2bSriqLVWHiI3V69NWbqPef" --------------s2bSriqLVWHiI3V69NWbqPef Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><head> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"> </head> <body> <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">Bravo, Alain!  Thank you for savi= ng me from crafting a longer post.  I agree , wholeheartedly, with your take on the value of peer review.  Your notion that the advantages of peer review are orthogonal to the business models of the journals, is, as I see it, both right on target and a crucial point.  I place little value, both as an author and a reader, in "pre-prints."  = Brian Katz also captured aspects of my point of view quite well: "[A] Pre-print is an unreviewed un-published work, only submitted elsewhere for consideration. It has no more reference value than a blog, and maybe should be re-termed as such. Any results are therefore to be taken with a grain of salt, as with many conference papers which lack any significant review process."  If one wishes to establish "pr= imacy," then give talks and interact with colleagues.  Our field is not so large that, at least in my experience, getting scooped is an issue.  I understand that others may have had different experience but, across my entire career, not once has that been an problem (perhaps, because no one else was interested in what I was doing =F0=9F=99=82). Based on my experience reading pre-prints, they are the last format to which I would direct students.  That's because, often, I have found them to be sophisticated drafts of manuscripts that contain all manner of errors and questionable conclusions.  As I see it, they are not a valuable resource for one who is attempting to learn about the field and develop a highly-informed, integrated set of knowledge.  I view pre-prints as another contributor to wh= at I see as a general erosion of scientific rigor.  I understand and accept that many might disagree. As regular readers of this list know, I rarely post responses.  In this case, I felt compelled to contribute because of what I perceive to be the importance of the topic. Les -- Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. <b= >| Professor Emeritus Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of Medicine 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401 Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495 On 5/24/2023 4:26 AM, Alain de Cheveigne wrote: </div> <blockquote type=3D"cite" cite=3D"mid:FDDBE9B5-0F4D-493B-8D1F-AC588A9FA= A63@xxxxxxxx"> <pre class=3D"moz-quote-pre" wrap=3D"">*** Attention: This is an exte= rnal email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on link= s. *** Hi Jonathan, all, Here's a different perspective. First of all, the issue of peer review should be distinguished from that of= publishers shaving the wool off our backs (more below). Peer review offers functions that we miss out on in the preprint model. Wee= ding out junk is one, improving papers (and the ideas in them) is another. = A third is reducing the bulk of things to read. The last might seem counterintuitive: surely, more is better? The thing is= , we have limited time and cognitive bandwidth. Lack of time is the major o= bstacle to keeping abreast, and lack of time of the potential audience is w= hat prevents our ideas having an impact. You painstakingly work to solve a = major problem in the field, write it up carefully, and no one notices becau= se attention is carried away by the tweet cycle. The review/journal model helps in several ways. First, by prioritizing thin= gs to read (as an alternative to the random - or otherwise biased - selecti= on induced by lack of time). Second, by improving the readability of the p= apers: more readable means less time per paper means more attention for oth= er papers - including possibly yours. Third, by organizing - however imperf= ectly - the field. For example, you can (or could) keep abreast of a topic in acoustics by sca= nning JASA and a few other journals. With the preprint/twitter model the 'f= ield' risks being shattered into micro-fields, bubbles, or cliques. My experience of the review process is - as everyone's - mixed. I remember= intense frustration at the reviewer's dumbness, and despair at ever gettin= g published. I also remember what I learned in the process. Almost invaria= bly, my papers were improved by orders of magnitude (not just incrementally= ). I also spend a lot of time reviewing. I find it a painful process, as it in= volves reading (I'm a bit dyslexic), and trying to understand what is writt= en and - to be helpful to the author - what the author had in mind and how = he/she could better formulate it to get the message across, and avoid wasti= ng the time of - hopefully - countless readers. It does involve weeding out= some junk too. Science is not just about making new discoveries or coming up with radicall= y new ideas. These are few and far between. Rather, it's a slow process of = building on other people's ideas, digesting, tearing down, clearing the rub= ble, and building some more. The review process makes the edifice more like= ly to stand. Journals play an important role in this accumulation, even if = most content is antiquated and boring. It's a miracle that some journals ha= ve done this over decades, even centuries. Which brings back to the issue of money, impact factors, and careers. Lots= to say about that, mostly depressing, but mainly orthogonal from the peer-= review issue. Alain </pre> <blockquote type=3D"cite"> <pre class=3D"moz-quote-pre" wrap=3D"">On 23 May 2023, at 13:54, Jo= nathan Z Simon <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href=3D"mailto:jzsimon@xxxxxxxx= d.edu"><jzsimon@xxxxxxxx></a> wrote: Matt, In this context I would avoid the term =E2=80=9Cpublishing=E2=80=9D, since = that has such a different meaning for so many people, but I personally do t= ake advantage of posting preprints on a public server (like arXiv) almost e= very chance I get. Preprints (preprint =3D a fully written paper that is not (yet) published) = have been useful for many decades, originally in physics, as a way of getti= ng one's research results out in a timely manner. Other key benefits are th= at it establishes primacy of the research findings, that it is citable in o= ther researchers' papers, and that it can be promoted by social media such = as this listserve (more below on this). But the biggest benefit is typicall= y getting the paper out into the world for others to learn from, without ha= ving to wait based on the whims of publishers and individual reviewers. If = most of your published papers get accepted eventually, and the most importa= nt findings don=E2=80=99t get cut in the review process, then preprints are= something you should definitely consider. Reviewers often make published p= apers better, but maybe not so much better that it=E2=80=99s worth waiting = many months for others to see your results. arXiv is the oldest website for posting preprints, and if its Audio and Spe= ech section is active, that might be a good place to post your preprints. B= ut there may be other options for you. As an auditory neuroscientist I typi= cally use bioRxiv (e.g., "Changes in Cortical Directional Connectivity= during Difficult Listening in Younger and Older Adults=E2=80=9D <a class= =3D"moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href=3D"https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.= biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.19.541500__;!!Cn_UX_p3!kFiRWQEegTNQdy1A= nsa9h3JyDYE11HFCa1dc0ivav-YtNjO5e3j_ubj8qWBH74n7MQLs_tQdqS60bkntxsk1VxGmQSH= zdpo$"><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1= 101/2023.05.19.541500__;!!Cn_UX_p3!kFiRWQEegTNQdy1Ansa9h3JyDYE11HFCa1dc0iva= v-YtNjO5e3j_ubj8qWBH74n7MQLs_tQdqS60bkntxsk1VxGmQSHzdpo$ ></a>), but I a= lso use PsyArXiv if the topic is more perceptual than neural (e.g., =E2=80= =9CAttention Mobilization as a Modulator of Listening Effort: Evidence from= Pupillometry=E2=80=9D <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href=3D"https://u= rldefense.com/v3/__https://psyarxiv.com/u5xw2__;!!Cn_UX_p3!kFiRWQEegTNQdy1A= nsa9h3JyDYE11HFCa1dc0ivav-YtNjO5e3j_ubj8qWBH74n7MQLs_tQdqS60bkntxsk1VxGmdmz= YTxc$"><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://psyarxiv.com/u5xw2__;!!Cn_UX= _p3!kFiRWQEegTNQdy1Ansa9h3JyDYE11HFCa1dc0ivav-YtNjO5e3j_ubj8qWBH74n7MQLs_tQ= dqS60bkntxsk1VxGmdmzYTxc$ ></a>). [See what I mean about promoting your = research on social media?] I=E2=80=99m sure others have opinions too. Jonathan </pre> <blockquote type=3D"cite"> <pre class=3D"moz-quote-pre" wrap=3D"">On May 22, 2023, at 6:45 P= M, Matt Flax <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href=3D"mailto:flatmax@xxxxxxxx= MAX.COM"><flatmax@xxxxxxxx></a> wrote: Is anyone publishing on arXiv at the moment ? It seems that to publish ther= e they rely on a web of trust. There is an Audio and Speech section of arXiv which would suit our communit= y. thanks Matt </pre> </blockquote> <pre class=3D"moz-quote-pre" wrap=3D""> -- Jonathan Z. Simon (he/him) University of Maryland Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering / Dept. of Biology / Institu= te for Systems Research 8223 Paint Branch Dr. College Park, MD 20742 USA Office: 1-301-405-3645, Lab: 1-301-405-9604, Fax: 1-301-314-9281 <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" href=3D"https://urldefense.com/v3/__http= ://www.isr.umd.edu/Labs/CSSL/simonlab/__;!!Cn_UX_p3!kFiRWQEegTNQdy1Ansa9h3J= yDYE11HFCa1dc0ivav-YtNjO5e3j_ubj8qWBH74n7MQLs_tQdqS60bkntxsk1VxGm-oG2HQs$">= https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.isr.umd.edu/Labs/CSSL/simonlab/__;!!= Cn_UX_p3!kFiRWQEegTNQdy1Ansa9h3JyDYE11HFCa1dc0ivav-YtNjO5e3j_ubj8qWBH74n7MQ= Ls_tQdqS60bkntxsk1VxGm-oG2HQs$</a> </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <div class=3D"moz-signature">-- =20 <title></title> <div class=3D"moz-signature"> <div class=3D"moz-signature">Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. </= b>| Professor Emeritus<sp= an style=3D"mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:= p> <div class=3D"moz-signature"> <div class=3D"moz-signature"> <div class=3D"moz-signature"> <div class=3D"moz-signature"> Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of Medicine 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401 Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495 <img moz-do-not-send=3D"false" src=3D"cid:part1.PYSzefE= n.NN0MFzWK@xxxxxxxx" alt=3D"" width=3D"125" height=3D"48"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>= --------------s2bSriqLVWHiI3V69NWbqPef Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png" Content-ID: <part1.PYSzefEn.NN0MFzWK@xxxxxxxx> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAH0AAAAwCAMAAAALmIWlAAAAGXRFWHRTb2Z0d2FyZQBBZG9iZSBJ bWFnZVJlYWR5ccllPAAAADNQTFRFKzVYHCZM4eLn8PHzpKi30dTbaG+IlZqrs7fDWWB8O0Nkd32U wsXPSlJwhoufDRhA////A68jmAAAABF0Uk5T/////////////////////wAlrZliAAACYklEQVR4 2uzY22KDIAwAUC7e6gjw/187gUC4OetaupflaTXKWSuBKNMuJptC+QMCP20auPHBQCubBWU46K24 uB7NfZ58ZqaMP8D8AEBHtT/goXnB8WPwBf8r1WYUXWxUOZobHcJXIMcfONclmE4s0lrRzYBIOjvT jX5WV6YbP2ZQJ6TWjfiAbuYzHW7p+xpuolQrP83sjQ5nupnu6LqaJ92MbnSznulcfkBHpNXNY6y+ c0JKnWX1eFeflQt5qcNESKnrQMrf6LSAXeiWkEoXdOU4nZBKxzPnoTohtW5ZZyK8W09Io6tYjyP1 iDS6XbAeh815S0irS6zHUfXuB0Ok1S3W41AdEWh1/Nb7UD1bWytd0LY4ThdnerYbBJ1taT5XBmy4 J8mNnWagp5fbba6HeiTdneK6vNgoFj0EhyO4eSZT6AlpdNXoNzqYi94GbIU0eqhHp3d5drRf4heZ Uo9Iq8vYptup6VB37H6m/W6m0hFpdaxH3/yK9cHpVq5Zy59n2GMV/QxPGdV9NElPE9njyOozsfWW Kq6j7bLuw97KPBnM/mX86//6n+tH/yLKP7AUXcyd80Lx53WnspB47ty5qKND1gLockfIFzHR7srp Q7X0+6GgHPNFXedPyaN1CPFli71z+ZBeTxbcI2RXxwOQj/lW/Ui610Z6gA4a32WRrssXYbO76V/Z y6FLnZVj/qCnqGcdZE1DeFKcntWrMV/RZXCh7B/fpF/+8tQQx6J74y9/Oeuyrm75+Jyf8oKWH9CL 1SYNJtJ91HTOAD2fdjPN9UcsumwmDNYXqvPtOLa9pH8LMACnoV0siZAyOAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== --------------s2bSriqLVWHiI3V69NWbqPef-- --------------hRqkuGtVL0N5fp9wYEo0k0D0--

This message came from the mail archive
src/postings/2023/
maintained by:

DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University