Long shot, but possible with my connections here. Does anyone have a copy of ESRI (1998) Maplex-Automatic Cartographic Name Placement Software?. - which used to be at http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/maplexwp.pdf but isn't any more.
Apparently, it's a key reference for the cartography course I'm teaching next week and I've never heard of maplex before today.
Oooof, if you're postdocing in your 30s, this will hit you right in the feels.
For me, the work is not the problem. The work is great. The lack of hope that is caused by dimishing opportunities for a permanent position is the problem. We can't live in limbo forever.
This interview to Karikó ought to be mandatory reading for any scientist at any stage of their career.
And more child day care facilities please, at every academic institution. And less focus on papers and more on addressing research questions that advance our collective understanding. And more collaboration and less competition. I endorse every single statement. What a wonderful scientist and human being.
Scientist Katalin Karikó’s work didn’t get the attention it deserved until the start of the pandemic in 2020, when suddenly her area of expertise, mRNA, became the most important subject of research worldwide.
Personally, I've avoided MDPI, and recommended early career colleagues to do the same (not always successfully). Then, a few weeks ago, a collaborator resubmitted a paper that I was a coauthor on to an MDPI journal without asking me first. Rather than ask to be removed, I had first-hand experience of the publishing process.
In short, my experience was there were some excellent reviewer comments. But you could ignore some (maybe many) and get published. Which to me, invalidates the review process. IMO (and it seems many others) it confirms that the publishers want your open access fee over good science.
The paper that I am a coauthor on was accepted, and at least I could advise my senior author to make sure they d... show more
Personally, I've avoided MDPI, and recommended early career colleagues to do the same (not always successfully). Then, a few weeks ago, a collaborator resubmitted a paper that I was a coauthor on to an MDPI journal without asking me first. Rather than ask to be removed, I had first-hand experience of the publishing process.
In short, my experience was there were some excellent reviewer comments. But you could ignore some (maybe many) and get published. Which to me, invalidates the review process. IMO (and it seems many others) it confirms that the publishers want your open access fee over good science.
The paper that I am a coauthor on was accepted, and at least I could advise my senior author to make sure they did the best job possible in improving the paper through the 'review process'. I suspect you could make all sorts of changes at this stage and there would be no come back (no, we didn't try this). We had numerous missed 'deadline' emails from the journal, followed by very prompt invoicing.
My experience mirrors the examples in the article. I have yet to review for MDPI and do not plan to do so, and I will continue to recommend colleagues to publish elsewhere.
The web service TurnItIn is a "plagiarism detector". Lots of universities use it to assess whether their students are copy-n-pasting content which they haven't written.
I'm not a big fan of it. First, I'll explain how to opt-out your websites. Then I'll explain why I don't like the service.
Block Their Robot
TurnItIn scans the web and records everything on your websit
The web service TurnItIn is a “plagiarism detector”. Lots of universities use it to assess whether their students are copy-n-pasting content which they haven’t written. I’m …
