A recent pilot project by the National Science Foundation (NSF) aimed at easing the strain on its vaunted merit review system featured an unusual twist: Grant applicants were required to review seven proposals from peers competing for the same pot of money. The approach created a captive—and highly motivated—pool of reviewers for program managers within NSF’s Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation Division, saving them time. And using mail reviews rather than panels also saved NSF money. The quality of the reviews also seemed to be comparable to what is generated with NSF’s traditional approach to peer review. NSF officials are weighing whether to expand the pilot to other programs.
Very interesting observations taken again from the blog DarkHorse Analytics on presenting graphs. Consider!
To illustrate how less ink is more effective, attractive and impactive we put together this animated gif. In it we start with a chart, similar to what we’ve seen in many presentations, and vastly improve it with progressive deletions and no additions.
At Wednesday’s seminar (7 May 2014) Mrs. Dr.. Olga Volkova of Lomonosov Moscow State University, will present the topic Low-dimensional antiferromagnet Li2CuZrO4: quantum magnetism meets quantum electric dipoles.
Warto przeczytać cały artykuł. Zaczyna się od zabawnego pytania: czy gekony (które chodzą po prawie wszystkim) mogą chodzić po teflonie. A po mokrym teflonie (czy może raczej teflonie, który znajduje się pod wodą)?
I jak zwykle: eksperyment, wnioski. Jedno jest inaczej niż u nas: pytanie jak tę wiedzę wykorzystać…
“OK, buddy, how about this one: Can you walk on Teflon?”
The answer: not very well. The popular DuPont nonstick product not only resists cheese omelets, but it also presented a significant challenge to the hairy toes of the gecko.
Fore everyone: also applicable beyond the specific field for which it was written.
The fundamental purpose of scientific discourse is not the mere presentation of information and thought, but rather its actual communication. It does not matter how pleased an author might be to have converted all the right data into sentences and paragraphs; it matters only whether a large majority of the reading audience accurately perceives what the author had in mind. Therefore, in order to understand how best to improve writing, we would do well to understand better how readers go about reading. Such an understanding has recently become available through work done in the fields of rhetoric, linguistics and cognitive psychology. It has helped to produce a methodology based on the concept of reader expectations.