a quick post to capture a few new literate programming threads that I will now uncache.
following a dexy thread lead me to to a vimeo. apparently the code word is artifact.
yes, googling gets me somewhere on stackoverflow.
six months ago I couldn't find anyone weaving with python.
here is some code. here is some more. here is a list. here is a wiki.
where are some users?
must look up why we all love ReST and how long that will last.
Showing posts with label python. Show all posts
Showing posts with label python. Show all posts
28 September 2010
27 September 2010
more python and peer review
they go together like bread and honey these days.
after a few hours of *bucks and a traffic ticket, a 2nd referee report, which repeats verbatim much of what was in the initial review, is off.
I am really starting to worry that if I had to follow Hogg's research blog rules then I would have nothing to write about.
The highlight of my day was submitting a bit to our astropython website and doing some brainstorming on ways to increase astropython reader involvement within the confines of the current blog structure. also: what is the best way to accept user contributed code, store it, tag it, share it?
after a few hours of *bucks and a traffic ticket, a 2nd referee report, which repeats verbatim much of what was in the initial review, is off.
I am really starting to worry that if I had to follow Hogg's research blog rules then I would have nothing to write about.
The highlight of my day was submitting a bit to our astropython website and doing some brainstorming on ways to increase astropython reader involvement within the confines of the current blog structure. also: what is the best way to accept user contributed code, store it, tag it, share it?
24 September 2010
python and peer review
devoted a questionable amount of time issuing posts to or editing invisible parts of astropython.org. yes, the time average postings to astropython are up due to two of us; still there are few commentors and no new contributors.
then i went back to kindergarten -- cutting figures out of (printed) papers to compare with other figures all as part of a being a journal referee. besides making me print something out, this effort typifies for me the actual barrier in the current publishing paradigm -- papers (sans data) as slim advertisements of research -- to meaningful refereeing: if the closest thing to data i have are cut out paper figures then how exactly am I suppose to provide the high quality / blue ribbon value that journals claim peer-review provides for arbitrating scientific progress?
To oppose "actual" I imply the "imaginary" problem of a referee having too much data to review.
Nevertheless, the review is undone, an editor is likely peeved, and my papers, hypothetically much more tightly written, conceptually woven than the one I'm engaged in review, languish.
then i went back to kindergarten -- cutting figures out of (printed) papers to compare with other figures all as part of a being a journal referee. besides making me print something out, this effort typifies for me the actual barrier in the current publishing paradigm -- papers (sans data) as slim advertisements of research -- to meaningful refereeing: if the closest thing to data i have are cut out paper figures then how exactly am I suppose to provide the high quality / blue ribbon value that journals claim peer-review provides for arbitrating scientific progress?
To oppose "actual" I imply the "imaginary" problem of a referee having too much data to review.
Nevertheless, the review is undone, an editor is likely peeved, and my papers, hypothetically much more tightly written, conceptually woven than the one I'm engaged in review, languish.
05 October 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)