As a full-time freelancer, I still need more work. However, some papers are impossible to fix, because the English is sooooooo bad. Ok, I can fix the grammar, but I cannot fix the meaning of some sentences. I have no idea what the hell the authors (or the translators) are trying to say! I know time is money, at least for freelancers. When I cannot afford the time to play the guessing game, I surrender. (I just wrote to the client that I could not edit the paper.) Do I feel like a loser now? Not really. Because I have never failed to edit any paper before, no matter how bad. This paper is just too much for me to handle.
I went to my dentist for toothache yesterday, and he found nothing wrong. So, I asked what I should take to reduce the pain in case it returns. He said: "Advil," which is what I get when I googled before visiting him. So, I took one Advil after dinner when I felt the pain was coming back. No use. Watching a movie, no use. Finally, I started editing (because I had to kill an hour before I can take some other painkillers). Now, the pain is nearly gone. Is this the delayed effect of Advil? Or, the effect of editing, even though I was getting impatient with this poorly written paper...
《自然》曾发表社论：科学家，博客是个好东西！（见附件1） 《科学网》曾编译该社论，题为：科学家写博客好处多，更多的科学家应进入博客世界（见附件2）。 AN曾呼应：也说博客是个好东西。 近日，韩先生提出 院士“显规则”：不能写博客，并作 了很细致的分析。还有大量相关文章。 总之，从T朝现实看，科学家千万别听《自然》社论：it is bad to blog！ —————————————————————————————— 附件2： 《自然》社论：科学家写博客好处多 更多的研究人员应该进入博客世界，包括那些待发表论文的作者 http://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2009/2/216650.html 附件1：Editorial Nature 457 , 1058 (26 February 2009) | doi:10.1038/4571058a ; Published online 25 February 2009 It's good to blog http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7233/full/4571058a.html Abstract More researchers should engage with the blogosphere, including authors of papers in press. Is blogging a part of science, journalism or public discourse? In fact it may be all of these — an ambiguity that can sometimes leave scientists feeling uncertain about the rules of the game. Imagine, for example, a case in which Nature 's blog The Great Beyond highlights new scientific results presented at a conference on climate. That blog entry then stimulates an online debate, with climate sceptics interpreting the results their way, and others firing off rebuttals. Imagine also that the work is described in a paper that had been accepted, but not published, by Nature . The authors of the paper want to enter the fray, but feel inhibited from doing so because of the embargo imposed by Nature and many other journals on communication by authors to the media ahead of publication. And why was Nature blogging their work anyway, ahead of its publication? This scenario highlights a need for clarification about Nature publications' procedures, and about how embargoes apply to blogs. It also highlights more generally the potential importance of scientists engaging in the blogosphere. There are societal debates that have much to gain from the uncensored voices of researchers. All Nature journals maintain confidentiality about submitted papers, so that only the editors directly responsible for those papers know about them. Other staff — including the various publications' journalists — are usually informed about a paper only once it has been accepted, and with the proviso that they do not disseminate any information about it to external contacts or readers. Likewise, we ask that authors refrain from actively promoting their work to the media and public ahead of its publication. This embargo policy rests on the principle that scientists' and the public's best interests are served by press coverage of work that has been peer reviewed, and is available for others to see for themselves. At the same time, however, our cardinal rule has always been to promote scientific communication. We have therefore never sought to prevent scientists from presenting their work at conferences, or from depositing first drafts of submitted papers on preprint servers. So if Nature journalists or those from any other publication should hear results presented at a meeting, or find them on a preprint server, the findings are fair game for coverage — even if that coverage is ahead of the paper's publication. This is not considered a breaking of Nature 's embargo. Nor is it a violation if scientists respond to journalists' queries in ensuring that the facts are correct — so long as they don't actively promote media coverage. The blogosphere differs from mass media and specialized media in many respects, but the same considerations apply in disseminating new scientific results there. Authors of papers in press have the right to correct misrepresentations and to point to results that will appear in a paper. But a full discussion should await the paper's publication. Indeed, researchers would do well to blog more than they do. The experience of journals such as Cell and PLoS ONE , which allow people to comment on papers online, suggests that researchers are very reluctant to engage in such forums. But the blogosphere tends to be less inhibited, and technical discussions there seem likely to increase. Moreover, there are societal debates that have much to gain from the uncensored voices of researchers. A good blogging website consumes much of the spare time of the one or several fully committed scientists that write and moderate it. But it can make a difference to the quality and integrity of public discussion.
I told the journal editor "such a poorly written paper should have never been sent out for review, not to mention the second time." Below is part of my review. Reject. The paper is very poorly written, from violating plain English language rules to bad organization. Most importantly, I don’t think the authors demonstrated xxx is the cause. They can (do the following test to sort things out). … Some examples of bad English: 1) The authors don’t punctuate correctly. For example, “The Indian Ocean, unlike other oceans is strongly …” (Line 38). A comma is needed after “unlike other oceans.” 2) Randomly place citation(s). For example, “during southwest (xxx et al., 199x) monsoon…” (Line 58; Lines 237-238). 3) Even at the beginning of a sentence, the authors use “Fig x” (Line 218; 247), or “Figures 3 to 5) (Line 273) without any consistency. In Line 302, it was a lower case “figure x.” 4) “To understand and comprehend…” (Line 340). Redundant. ps. May be some students put this poor guy there as the first author.
Drafted on Saturday, 25 September 2010. From time to time, there is a study or two about whether or not money can buy happiness. Well, two hours ago, I was composing a Blog in my head, entitled Money can certainly buy some happiness. Now, I feel like saying Money can buy a lot of trouble, too. Mid Week, my old washer stopped working again. This time, the problem sounded very serious. Since this set of washer/dryer is pretty old, so old that I wanted to rid off it when we moved in several years ago. So, as much as I hate to spend money on an appliance, I was glad to say goodbye this time, instead of calling a repairman. It took me a day to research washer/dryer online to decide which brand and what kind of washer/dryer to buy. At the end, my concern of spending too much money and of new technology won: I decided to get Sears' own brand, Kenmore, a stacked washer/dryer of 24 (model number 88752). Buying things in America can be as easy as a phone call, which was what I did yesterday. With a plastic card, and a good credit rating, one can even buy a new car over the phone. (I don't know if one can buy something more expensive, but I did buy a new car over the phone myself. Why did I do that? I was afraid of being ripped off if I walked into a car dealer. So, I called: Let's not waste your time or mine. This is what I want and this is the price I am willing to pay. Take it or leave it. It worked ...) My order went through Friday afternoon, and the delivery was scheduled for Saturday between 11:15 am and 1:15 pm. The delivery came at 11:00 am, and the two nice guys left in about 15 mins (including giving me two minutes to clean up the area for the new set and test the unit). I was so pleased with the good lucky I had thus far, and decided to run a load right away. Then, I noticed a few bits of foam floating in the washer, and decided to leave the lid open so that I could catch the floating bits and fish them out ... That's when I noticed that the water level kept on rising, much much faster that the sea-level rise due to global warming (if you are a believer). I stopped the machine, in fear of flooding my kitchen, which I eventually did during one of my test runs. Calling Sears about the problem was frustrating, and exhausting. I may write it when the problem is over, but for now I have a big white elephant to look at ...
It's common sense, right? Well, I never followed this rule. Luckily, I was around for a brand new Kenmore 88752 (stacked washer/dryer) when the water kept on filling up. You would think there is a built-in mechanism to shut the machine down when the water level exceeds a limit? No. I didn't want to give up so easily and I also need the washer badly, so I tried a few more times. This morning, I was sitting in front of my laptop for a few minutes too long, and the washer flooded my kitchen. Well, now I can tell Sears with this un-planned experiment: Your product really is a piece of junk!
标签: bad
