Martin Jol wants to pip Bolton to the signing of Stoke City striker Cameron Jerome, according to The Sun.It is claimed Fulham are competing with Wanderers in an effort to capture the former England Under-21 international, who has scored seven goals this season and is apparently rated at £4m.Terry is nursing an injury.The Guardian report that Chelsea’s interim boss Roberto Di Matteo may be forced to risk John Terry despite doubts over the defender’s fitness.Terry is struggling with a rib injury but with some vital matches approaching, Di Matteo is desperate to include him.The Italian said: “It all depends on how quick he can heal and the pain level he can sustain. As soon as that is possible to do he will train.”Meanwhile, The Sun declare that Di Matteo believes he needs to achieve a top-four finish and win the Champions League to be considered a success.Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
Marshawn Lynch is conducting a postgame interview with a garbage can in front of him.“Don’t cross my barrier,” he says. pic.twitter.com/u7BYCNrDyI— Matt Schneidman (@mattschneidman) September 23, … Beast Mode is not a talker — unless he is.After the Raiders fell to 0-3 in Miami, Marshawn Lynch was in a rare talkative mood.And an optimistic one.If it feels like you haven’t heard from Marshawn in awhile, you haven’t. The guy hadn’t talked to the media since Week Two of last season.
People are so used to peer-reviewed scientific journals behind paywalls, it’s hard to think of any other way. Till now.Not many decades ago, students needing to write term papers on science went to the library, pored through booklets of the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature, then walked through aisle after aisle of tall bookshelves, scanning Dewey Decimal labels on tomes of scientific journals. Seeking the papers jotted down on their notepads, they would run across thousands of pages of jargon in fine print interrupted with with graphs and equations. This experience undoubtedly colored students’ perceptions of science itself: austere, unapproachable, intimidating.Now, research can be found with a few mouse clicks and read on a home computer screen or even a smartphone. An industry of science reporters dumbs down the research in friendly press releases, embedding catchy photos and video clips. It may be much less intimidating, but leaves some traditions intact: it’s not official “science” without anonymous peer review done in advance. And you have to pay money to see it.The Revolution in Science MediaThe revolution in science publishing that is underway is changing those traditions, too, offering new ways to think about fundamental questions, like what are the hallmarks of science? Who owns it? Must publishing practices be set in stone? Why can’t research be criticized immediately by real people with identities, and corrected immediately? How can biases and conflicts of interest be disclosed more easily? What about science fraud? Why can’t ordinary citizens contribute to scientific knowledge? Here are some recent articles asking such questions.A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences (Stern and O’Shea, PLoS Biology). This article hits the nail on the head, addressing many of the questions above. Stern and O’Shea advocate more freedom for people to contribute to the science discussion, and for ideas to be criticized openly after publication:Science advances through rich, scholarly discussion. More than ever before, digital tools allow us to take that dialogue online. To chart a new future for open publishing, we must consider alternatives to the core features of the legacy print publishing system, such as an access paywall and editorial selection before publication. Although journals have their strengths, the traditional approach of selecting articles before publication (“curate first, publish second”) forces a focus on “getting into the right journals,” which can delay dissemination of scientific work, create opportunity costs for pushing science forward, and promote undesirable behaviors among scientists and the institutions that evaluate them. We believe that a “publish first, curate second” approach with the following features would be a strong alternative: authors decide when and what to publish; peer review reports are published, either anonymously or with attribution; and curation occurs after publication, incorporating community feedback and expert judgment to select articles for target audiences and to evaluate whether scientific work has stood the test of time. These proposed changes could optimize publishing practices for the digital age, emphasizing transparency, peer-mediated improvement, and post-publication appraisal of scientific articles.The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals (Nature Communications). What happens when peer review reports are published along with the science? The argument has been reviewers would shy away from submitting reviews, but a study of thousands of examples in an experiment showed that “publishing reports did not significantly compromise referees’ willingness to review, recommendations, or turn-around times.” Nature‘s editors found this study instructive. They plan to offer it to scientists, but not make it compulsory.The itching ears of peer review (World Magazine). Last November, Julie Borg reported on the hoax by social scientists who had submitted “absurd, bogus papers to well-known academic journals to show how easily studies can pass the supposedly rigorous peer review processif they spout trendy, liberal dogma. The scholars submitted 20 hoax papers to journals that focused on race, gender, sexuality, and other politically charged issues. Much to the scientific community’s shame, seven of the papers passed peer review and were published.”Use of liberal buzzwords and progressive ideas appeared to relax editors’ standards and let the papers through. One of the submitted papers even quoted from Hitler’s Mein Kampf in a feminist context. John Stonestreet remarked, “With mainstream academic journals going to the dogs, now’s not the time for Christians to lose our educational souls to fashionable nonsense.”Doubts and dialogue may alter public perceptions of science (University of Copenhagen). Is it OK to doubt what scientists say? These authors think so.Science projects within controversial fields such as synthetic biology could benefit from experimenting with communication settings in which experts share their thoughts and feelings with each other and the public. This allows for a more open and constructive dialogue with the public about research – and may even generate new research ideas, a new PhD thesis shows.What bioRxiv’s first 30,000 preprints reveal about biologists (Nature). Some biologists are following a pre-review publishing trend set by physicists. Cornell’s arXiv server allows physicists and mathematicians to put their ideas out on the internet for their colleagues to read and discuss. With over 1.5 million submissions over its 28-year history, “e-publishing” of “preprints” has a strong track record. Five years ago, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory began a similar website for biologists called BioRxiv. The response has been tremendous, Nature says, showing a million downloads a month. One benefit for science itself is the publication of negative results, “which are rarely published in journals.” And yet they are important. If an experiment fails, other scientists need to know.European funders detail their open-access plan (Science). This in-depth article from Nov 2018 discusses “Plan S,” a European initiative to make all scientific research open-access (OA)—a fundamental change in the way science has traditionally been disseminated. Naturally, this has leading journals concerned, since paywall fees represent a large portion of their income. Some funding agencies may not even consider a paper if OA is not provided. One argument for OA is that science belongs to everyone, and stakeholders who fund it with their taxes should not have to pay additional fees to see the results. Journals argue that they provide added value with summaries and reviews, and a rigorous peer review system, but their complaints seem self-serving. OA proponents appear to have the stride in this race.Time to break academic publishing’s stranglehold on research (New Scientist). This article, also from November, explains some of the enthusiasm behind open access. They want to stop the evil, greedy publishers who are keeping your science from you.Here is a trivia question for you: what is the most profitable business in the world? You might think oil, or maybe banking. You would be wrong. The answer is academic publishing. Its profit margins are vast, reportedly in the region of 40 per cent.The reason it is so lucrative is because most of the costs of its content is picked up by taxpayers. Publicly funded researchers do the work, write it up and judge its merits. And yet the resulting intellectual property ends up in the hands of the publishers. To rub salt into the wound they then sell it via exorbitant subscriptions and paywalls, often paid for by taxpayers too.Now that they have you up in arms in class warfare, New Scientist’s editors feel obliged to explain the “whiff of hypocrisy” you may smell, since they also charge for their magazine. “But good journalism does not come free,” the capitalists explain sheepishly in parens. Nevertheless, “The academic publishing business model is indefensible,” they go on to say. “Practically everybody – even the companies that profit from it – acknowledges that it has to change.”Revolutions often go to radical extremes. In the midst of the publishing revolution, we must remember that intellectual property creators have rights. For instance, musicians and filmmakers have suffered miserably because of online access. Thieves will upload whole movies, books or musical works without a qualm, leaving creators at a huge loss of expected revenue. This is unethical; a free society depends on copyrights. Not everything belongs to everybody. When that becomes the rule, nobody has the incentive to create. Science publishing is more complicated, because there are multiple stakeholders. Governments have interest in funding research for reasons of prestige, national security, or prosperity. Labs and institutions are often the recipients of funds, delivering research results, but have bills to pay as well. Scientific journals and magazines have long been the primary distributors of research knowledge. Journals may make a lot of money, but we must not fall into the trap of jealousy. Socialists breed contempt for the rich; being rich is not evil, if wealth is earned with integrity. At CEH, we’re not so much concerned with how much money they make, but their bias.So who owns science? The government doesn’t; their money is taxpayer money. Do taxpayers own science? Much of it, yes, but they own it through electing representatives who are expected to use judgment and knowledge to make wise decisions about spending priorities. It’s simplistic for citizens to demand all research as their property just because part of their taxes pay for it. There are national security risks in that attitude; some research has dual use, legitimate for the military but dangerous in the public domain. It’s also unfair to publishing companies for citizens to force them out of business on that argument. What about their writers who organize, analyze, and editorialize on recent findings? What about their layout artists, and expenses such as office space and equipment? Destroy one business, and you often damage whole communities who service their needs.We don’t begrudge journals, magazines and institutions for being in business and making a profit; we just demand changes to their anti-conservative, anti-design, pro-Darwin bias. If they really reported fairly on intelligent design and used critical reasoning about evolutionary claims, that would be great. We also demand fiscal responsibility and accountability. Simultaneously, the public has the right to know about some of the research they paid for with their tax dollars. Here’s a compromise: offer both Open Access and dressed-up publishing of research, and present it fairly, with a variety of viewpoints. Many people are probably not going to read raw scientific papers. Journalists have a gift of writing for the public and for the scientific community as well. They can do this online and for print, supported by subscriptions, advertising and foundations. Get the government out of private business, but let the public have their due. And demand the government stop funding unethical research (like fetal tissue or human cloning), and reduce wasteful research (like the effect of Swedish massage on rabbits). If people really want to know how fast crawfish run on treadmills, they can experiment at home.As with so many human activities, a free market is best. That needs to include a free market of ideas (see FreeScience.today).(Visited 399 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
An FBI spokesman says the man stood up during the flight Monday to make the claim but that there is no indication that any passengers were poisoned. United Airlines says Flight 116 continued as scheduled after the man made the statement.A passenger from another plane at the terminal says a heavy police contingent greeted the flight’s arrival at Newark Liberty Airport.University of San Francisco student Merrill Amos tells The Associated Press than more than a couple dozen police and emergency vehicles were on the tarmac. She says she saw a staircase pulled up to the plane and an ambulance nearby.“He wasn’t passed-out limp, but he looked very sluggish,” Ms Amos said.
TagsTransfersAbout the authorFreddie TaylorShare the loveHave your say Arsenal manager Emery refused recalls for Nelson & Chambersby Freddie Taylor10 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveArsenal manager Unai Emery has been blocked from recalling Reiss Nelson and Calum Chambers.As injuries have begun to pile-up at the Emirates, Emery is desperate for reinforcements this month.However, BBC claims Nelson and Chambers will not be recalled from their successful loan spells.18-year-old Nelson has excelled for Hoffenheim this season, while Chambers has also impressed with Arsenal’s Premier League rivals, Fulham.Emery has seen defenders Hector Bellerin, Rob Holding, Shkodran Mustafi, Nacho Monreal, Saed Kolasinac and Laurent Koscielny all to succumb to injuries in recent weeks.
TagsTransfersAbout the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Rafael Garcia thrilled with first pro Everton dealby Paul Vegas2 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveRafael Garcia has signed a first pro Everton deal until the end of June 2022 after turning 17 earlier this month.A first pro deal is a reward for the youngster despite confirmation that he will miss the rest of this season, having suffered an ACL injury while in pre-season.”Signing a first pro contract is a huge thing and hopefully it will be the start of something big,” Garcia told evertonfc.com.”I’ve had so much help since I’ve joined Everton, from my teammates, my coaches and the staff.”The people at Everton are very nice and very kind. The transition has been easy.”It is a great club to be at, with a brilliant history.”Getting the injury was a blow but the aim is to get back for pre-season next year and be stronger and fitter than I was.”
zoom Dubai-based port and terminal operator DP World has seen its Long-Term Issuer Default Rating (IDR) upgraded to BBB+ from BBB and Short-Term IDR affirmed at F2 by ratings agency Fitch Ratings.Fitch Ratings added that the rating outlook is stable. This follows on Fitch’s rating upgrade in August 2016 from BBB- to BBB and reflects DP World’s solid performance and stable cash flow generation.The ratings agency also notes DP World’s flexibility in its expansionary plan to maintain leverage below the threshold of 4.5x, well diversified and resilient portfolio and pricing power due to its significant exposure to origin and destination traffic.According to Moody’s ratings agency, DP World’s current ratings for three entities DP World Limited, DP World Sukuk Limited, and DP World Crescent Limited are Baa2 with a stable outlook.“To receive consecutive upgrades in the current market conditions is a true recognition of the strength and resilience of our business alongside our long-term growth potential and continued progress to create the most productive, efficient and safe trade solutions globally. We remain committed to delivering growth through continued disciplined investments and managing leverage,” Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, Group Chairman and CEO, DP World, said.
APTN NewsThe National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls has hired its third executive director and new head of research.The announcement comes amid money troubles and only eight months remaining in the commission’s mandate.Chief Commissioner Marion Buller told APTN News earlier this month she needed a cash injection of “10 per cent” of her $53.9 million budget to complete the work.Buller has also asked the government for a two-year extension of time and another $50 million to complete the work “properly.”The minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Carolyn Bennett, has not yet made a decision on an extension, her office says.The new hires are Jennifer Moore Rattray, who is leaving the Manitoba government, and Karine Duhamel, who was at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. Buller said in a release the Indigenous professionals will begin their duties April 30 and remain in Winnipeg.Rattray, who worked briefly as broadcaster at CBC Winnipeg before assuming a senior role at the University of Winnipeg, replaces Debbie Reid who left in January 2018 after a stormy tenure. She replaced Michèle Moreau who resigned last summer.The inquiry has seen at least 20 people leave due to resignations and firings since January 2017.Rattray takes over from Calvin Wong, who was acting as executive director in the interim.The inquiry is also searching for a new director of communications. It posted the want ad on its website to replace Bernee Bolton, who has been on leave.