/sci/ - Science & Math

Did you really think anybody on this board had ever been published? Lawl.

I have a first author publication in a rather high impact journal. It was for computational research I did on basic kinetic theory of inertial-confinement fusion plasmas.

>>2895355
I published my bachelors thesis. It was about hippocampal and medial frontal cortical synchrony of oscillatory dynamics during spatial navigation in humans. We measured from the hippocampi of epilepsy patients (they had electrodes in there for pre-surgical localization of epileptogenic tissue) in congruence with scalp EEG.

I'm getting ready to submit a slightly modified form of my thesis for publication, if that counts for anything. It's about how genetics apparently dictate how susceptible a rat line is to depression. Nothing terribly groundbreaking but hey, it's a publication.

Most science is specialised enough that if I fully answer your q I am opening my self up for stalkage.
Nature publications x2 (many other pubs). Field of astronomy.
I come to anon board for a reason and so do most scientists.

Four. Three in chemical kinetics (master's degree and related work), and one a solution to a (previously) open problem in combinatorics/graph theory.

>>2895719
>Nature publications x2
sure kiddo

>>2895726
U jelly.

>>2895726
he's probably like 12th down the list behind the postdocs and grad students for plotting a little graph. if at all.

>>2895738
You don't become coauthor for making a graph. You'll end up in the acknowledgments. Unless you have actually performed a significant amount of work there's no need to be coauthor, and certainly not in a Nature publication. You don't publish in Nature and nothing else, certainly not TWICE. I know brilliant people who've worked in academics for more than a decade and don't even have a coauthorship in Nature.

>>2895719


What's that reason?

Also, any tips on getting an astronomy phd?

>>2895752
you can put whoever the fuck you want as a coauthor, and undergrads often get included further down the list just for being part of the research group if they put in good effort.

>>2895752
Yeah, but you're forgetting they're not me.

Well, I have one out for review and nothing else.
I really hope it goes through though because I was a background extra for a TV show, and if I get a paper published (with my advisor), then I'll have a Erdos-Bacon number. Admittedly, it will (hopefully) be 32, but it's a start.

>>2895766
>if they put in good effort
That's what I said.
>Unless you have actually performed a significant amount of work
You don't get coauthored for making a graph.

>>2895752

>>2895766
but indeed, you're right, the PI's going to be choosier with the authors if it's published in nature.

>>2895768
Oh right. I guess they really aren't delusional. Unlike you.

>>2895774
oh, nevermind this then >>2895777 and just shut the fuck up already

>>2895784
>just shut the fuck up already
What? I'm agreeing with you and you get mad?

>>2895787
you display unnecessarily pedantic contrarianism to my satirically hyperbolic dismissal of his alleged contribution.

>>2895793
And why would that be a reason to retract [>>2895777]?
You can drop the pretense by the way. Unnecessarily complicated sentences make you look silly

>>2895800
>that's the joke.jpg
and you reconfirm your pedantry

>>2895738
Principle author of a nature paper can't plot their own graphs. lol.
Admittedly though I am not principle author of either paper but I guess the principles considered my work significant enough to be included. The Author list for the Nature pubs was cut down quite a bit compared to our regular pubs and to be honest I wasn't expecting to be included, it was nice though. Putting long lists of insignificant people like the cleaner in a publication does not happen.

>>2895804
Had this been a pleasant conversation the 'joke' would have been funny. But that's hardly the case, now is it? Hence, no reason for me to suspect it was a joke. Anyway, out of here. Have a nice day.

>>2895811
oh god what an idiot.

>>2895808
I just inherited some money. I will pay you 1000 euro's if you can send me an email from the correspondence address on the paper involved. Calling bullshit otherwise.

>>2895793
Are you a 'social scientist'?

Only twice.

First one about a Data Adquisition Card that my team designed at Uni.

Second one about certain analysis on CNT with Gaussian09.

Actually working on Nems pressure sensors.

>>2895833

I'm the computational physicist here.
>>2895711

My god, because nobody seems to get that post, let me explain:

I blew the nature guy off by saying he just contributed a graph.
This pretentious idiot tries to "explain" to me how scientific publication works.
(I reply in good faith and humor his point, until I realize he's a pedantic rambling fucktard)
So *I* reply with a pretentious post explaining the situation.

This guy is too dense to perceive the hyperbole in the first post, or the glaringly overly-verbose later post. why the fuck am i replying to this shit

I published a geology paper about the formation of the Great Canyon and Himalaya by Noah's Flood 4000 years ago.

I co-wrote a paper on automotive active suspension control

>>2895897

Nature is fucking weak.
JACS is about 50,000 times more prestigious than nature.


JACS publishes about 0.0001% of all submitted papers.


there are similarly prestigious journals that specialize in physics...

but there are few others beyond these 2 areas that are as prestigious.


JACS covers pretty much all applied science (no engineering, no pure math, no pure medicine).


everything from semiconductor physics to chemotherapy.


I am not well versed in the field of pure physics, but I know that there are a few well known journals.


but JACS is definitely in the top 5 most prestigious journals in the world, and definitely THE MOST prestigious journal with respect to anything related to chemistry, biochemistry, applied/molecular physics, materials science, chemical engineering, etc.

>>2895884
>I blew the nature guy off by saying he just contributed a graph.
Why would you do this?
Just to be a dick or troll was my assumption so my reply calling you jelly. Other anon had a crack at your dickishnes and you had a wee asspie wobbler.
>>2895808 Was my 3rd post which I hope pointed to your retardation in saying authors of Nature papers are just picked from whoever wants to be on the list.

1) publishing in an undergraduate or educational journal doesnt count.

this is worthless for real research and real CV (like if you are a scientist getting a job as a scientist, and list the full title and journal name of a paper published in an undergraduate educational journal. you are a fucking dumb fuck)


2) communications DO count, especially in the chemical fields (not sure if they even exist for theoretical physics and math)


3) the journal itself counts.

there are literally upwards of 10,000 different scholarly journals in the physical, biological, and engineering sciences... probably more.


I would say that 9,500 of those journals are worthless and not even worth mentioning in a professional setting.


even within, for example, RSC publishing... only about 10 of their publications are really "prestigious" to any measure.

>>2895907
< the most prestious journal on the face of the earth!!!

no but seriously yes some journals are very prestigious in their fields but if its science or nature it'll get you on the news
and there's a reason you go for these over others because its about impact not how many people you can turn down.

>I would say that 9,500 of those journals are worthless and not even worth mentioning in a professional setting.
completely missing the point of niche journals

>>2895355
Holy Asus!

There are other more important things in science than being published in a prestigeous journal. I mean honestly one excellent example is classified R&D which despite possibility of being cutting edge is nearly publicly unknown.

There are many reasons why would one want to classify his/her work (definitely not only present in military but practically all areas). - Though I am just an undergrad with no publications so maybe I'm just downright wrong and publications and populistic gossip are the essence of science.

The small yellow box at the bottom of that picture is summarizing beta decay. You have UUD (proton) going to UDD (neutron), in which case we should get a positron and a neutrino, not an electron and an anti-neutrino?

>>2896070
How did you derived it?

>>2895907

Sure buddy, that's probably why JACS' impact factor is about a million times smaller than Nature's, right?

Scientific American publishes research about an enormous variety of subjects, too, but that doesn't make it a prestigious journal.

>>2895719
What reason is that?

as far as putting unimportant people in the authors list, it happens

i suppose you all have heard of andre geim last years physics noble prize winner
he summited a paper in which he credited his hamster as a coauthor
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVH-42HXG7J-5N&_user=799533&_
coverDate=01%2F31%2F2001&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d
&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000043657&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=799533
&md5=4f87ea0d59324f8b0c3eb1911e5ffbce&searchtype=a

personally i say brofist for that

>>2896070
Nah, its the other beta decay. Neutron (udd) going over to proton (uud) via W-, plus electron and electron-antineutrino for lepton conservation.