Archive for Peer Community

ten computer codes that transformed science

Posted in Books, Linux, R, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 23, 2021 by xi'an

In a “Feature” article of 21 January 2021, Nature goes over a poll on “software tools that have had a big impact on the world of science”. Among those,

the Fortran compiler (1957), which is one of the first symbolic languages, developed by IBM. This is the first computer language I learned (in 1982) and one of the two (with SAS) I ever coded on punch cards for the massive computers of INSEE. I quickly and enthusiastically switched to Pascal (and the Apple IIe) the year after and despite an attempt at moving to C, I alas kept the Pascal programming style in my subsequent C codes (until I gave up in the early 2000’s!). Moving to R full time, even though I had been using Splus since a Unix version was produced. Interestingly, a later survey of Nature readers put R at the top of the list of what should have been included!, incidentally including Monte Carlo algorithms into the list (and I did not vote in that poll!),

the fast Fourier transform (1965), co-introduced by John Tukey, but which I never ever used (or at least knowingly!),

arXiv (1991), which was started as an emailed preprint list by Paul Ginsparg at Los Alamos, getting the current name by 1998, and where I only started publishing (or arXiving) in 2007, perhaps because it then sounded difficult to submit a preprint there, perhaps because having a worldwide preprint server sounded more like bother (esp. since we had then to publish our preprints on the local servers) than revolution, perhaps because of a vague worry of being overtaken by others… Anyway, I now see arXiv as the primary outlet for publishing papers, with the possible added features of arXiv-backed journals and Peer Community validations,

the IPython Notebook (2011), by Fernando Pérez, which started by 259 lines of Python code, and turned into Jupyter in 2014. I know nothing about this, but I can relate to the relevance of the project when thinking about Rmarkdown, which I find more and more to be a great way to work on collaborative projects and to teach. And for producing reproducible research. (I do remember writing once a paper in Sweave, but not which one…!)

news from PCI

Posted in Books, pictures, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on May 6, 2020 by xi'an

PCI Math Comp Biol gets live!

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , on March 5, 2020 by xi'an

A new Peer Community (PCI) preprint and postprint server is about to get live, with Mathematical & Computational Biology as its core interest. Thanks to the efforts of Amaury Lambert, Céline Scornavacca, and Eric Tannier. Following the earlier PCI Evol Biol (and my aborted attempt to start a PCI Comput Stats…). Although the funding and the core team are mostly French, the target is obviously international and editors from all backgrounds and specialties are most welcome to join as authors and reviewers!

open reviews

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , on September 13, 2019 by xi'an

When looking at a question on X validated, on the expected Metropolis-Hastings ratio being one (not all the time!), I was somewhat bemused at the OP linking to an anonymised paper under review for ICLR, as I thought this was breaching standard confidentiality rules for reviews. Digging a wee bit deeper, I realised this was a paper from the previous ICLR conference, already published both on arXiv and in the 2018 conference proceedings, and that ICLR was actually resorting to an open review policy where both papers and reviews were available and even better where anyone could comment on the paper while it was under review. And after. Which I think is a great idea, the worst possible situation being a poor paper remaining un-discussed. While I am not a big fan of the brutalist approach of many machine-learning conferences, where the restrictive format of both submissions and reviews is essentially preventing in-depth reviews, this feature should be added to statistics journal webpages (until PCIs become the norm).

peer reviews on-line or peer community?

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 20, 2018 by xi'an

Nature (or more precisely some researchers through Nature, associated with the UK Wellcome Trust, the US Howard Hughes Medical Institute (hhmo), and ASAPbio) has (have) launched a call for publishing reviews next to accept papers, one way or another, which is something I (and many others) have supported for quite a while. Including for rejected papers, not only because making these reviews public diminishes on principle the time involved in re-reviewing re-submitted papers but also because this should induce authors to revise papers with obvious flaws and missing references (?). Or abstain from re-submitting. Or publish a rejoinder addressing the criticisms. Anything that increases the communication between all parties, as well as the perspectives on a given paper. (This year, NIPS allows for the posting of reviews of rejected submissions, which I find a positive trend!)

In connection with this entry, I am still most sorry that I could not pursue the [superior in my opinion] project of Peer Community in computational statistics, for the time requested by Biometrika editing is just too important [given my current stamina!] for me to handle another journal (or the better alternative to a journal!). I hope someone else can take over the project and create the editorial team needed to run it.

And yet again in connection with this post (!), Andrew posted an announcement about the launch of res3archers.one, an on-line publication forum launched by Harry Crane and Ryan Martin, where the authors handle the peer review process from A to Z, including choosing the reviewers, whose reviews may be public or not, taken into account or not. Once published, the papers are open to comments from users, which constitutes a form of post-publication peer-review. Albeit a weak one in my opinion as the weakness of all such open depositories is the potential lack of interest of and reaction from the community. Incidentally, there is a $10 fee per submission for maintenance. Contrary to Peer Community in… the copyright is partly transferred to res3archers.one, which apparently prevents further publication in another journal.