titus is currently certified at Journeyer level.

Name: Titus Brown
Member since: 2004-10-29 00:14:46
Last Login: 2012-06-25 05:32:14

FOAF RDF Share This

Homepage: http://ivory.idyll.org/

Notes:

Also see http://ged.msu.edu/ (work page).

Projects

Articles Posted by titus

Recent blog entries by titus

Syndication: RSS 2.0

Some thoughts on Journal Impact Factor

A colleague just e-mailed me to ask me how I felt about journal impact factor being such a big part of the Academic Ranking of World Universities - they say that 20% of the ranking weight comes from # of papers published in Nature and Science. So what do I think?

On evaluations

I'm really not a big fan of rankings and evaluations in the first place. This is largely because I feel that evaluations are rarely objective. For one very specific example, last year at MSU I got formal evaluations from both of my departments. Starting with the same underlying data (papers published, students graduated, grants submitted/awarded, money spent, classes taught, body mass/height ratio, gender weighting, eye color, miles flown, talks given, liquid volume of students' tears generated, committees served on, etc.) one department gave me a "satisfactory/satisfactory/satisfactory" while the other department gave me an "excellent/excellent/excellent." What fun! (I don't think the difference was the caliber in departments.)

Did I mention that these rankings helped determine my raise for the year?

Anyhoo, I find the rating and ranking scheme within departments at MSU to be largely silly. It's done in an ad hoc manner by untrained people, and as far as I can tell, is biased against people who are not willing to sing their own praises. (I brought up the Dunning-Kruger effect in my last evaluation meeting. Heh.) That's not to say there's not serious intent -- they are factored into raises, and at least one other purpose of evaluating assistant professors is so that once you fire their ass (aka "don't give them tenure") there's a paper trail of critical evaluations where you explained that they were in trouble.

Metrics are part of the job, though; departments evaluate their faculty so they can see who, if anyone, needs help or support or mentoring, and to do this, they rely at least in part on metrics. Basically, if someone has lots of funding and lots of papers, they're probably not failing miserably at being a research professor; if they're grant-poor and paper-poor, they're targets for further investigation. There are lots of ways to evaluate, but metrics seem like an inextricable part of it.

Back to the impact factor

Like faculty evaluations, ranking by the impact factor of the journals that university faculty publish in is an attempt to predict future performance using current data.

But impact factor is extremely problematic for many reasons. It's based on citations, which (over the long run) may be an OK measure of impact, but are subject to many confounding factors, including field-specific citation patterns. It's an attempt to predict the success of individual papers on a whole-journal basis, which falls apart in the face of variable editorial decisions. High-impact journals are also often read more widely by people than low-impact journals, which yields a troubling circularity in terms of citation numbers (you're more likely to cite a paper you've read!) Worse, the whole system is prone to being gamed in various ways, which is leading to high rates of retractions for high-impact journals, as well as outright fraud.

Impact factor is probably a piss-poor proxy for paper impact, in other words.

If impact factor was just a thing that didn't matter, I wouldn't worry. The real trouble is that impact factors have real-world effect - many countries use impact factor of publications as a very strong weight in funding and promotion decisions. Interestingly, the US is not terribly heavy handed here - most universities seem pretty enlightened about considering the whole portfolio of a scientist, at least anecdotally. But I can name a dozen countries that care deeply about impact factor for promotions and raises.

And apparently impact factor affects university rankings, too!

Taking a step back, it's not clear that any good ranking scheme can exist, and if it does, we're certainly not using it. All of this is a big problem if you care about fostering good science.

The conundrum is that many people like rankings, and it seems futile to argue against measuring and ranking people and institutions. However, any formalized ranking system can be gamed and perverted, which ends up sometimes rewarding the wrong kind of people, and shutting out some of the right kind of people. (The Reed College position on the US News & World Report ranking system is worth reading here.) More generally, in any ecosystem, the competitive landscape is evolving, and a sensible measure today may become a lousy measure tomorrow as the players evolve their strategies; the stricter the rules of evaluation, and the more entrenched the evaluation system, the less likely it is to adapt, and the more misranking will result. So ranking systems need to evolve continuously.

At its heart, this is a scientific management challenge. Rankings and metrics do pretty explicitly set the landscape of incentives and competition. If our goal in science is to increase knowledge for the betterment of mankind, then the challenge for scientific management is to figure out how to incentive behaviors that trend in that direction in the long term. If you use bad or outdated metrics, then you incentivize the wrong kind of behavior, and you waste precious time, energy, and resources. Complicating this is the management structure of academic science, which is driven by many things that include rankings and reputation - concepts that range from precise to fuzzy.

My position on all of this is always changing, but it's pretty clear that the journal system is kinda dumb and rewards the wrong behavior. (For the record, I'm actually a big fan of publications, and I think citations are probably not a terribly bad measure of impact when measured on papers and individuals, although I'm always happy to engage in discussions on why I'm wrong.) But the impact factor is especially horrible. The disproportionate effect that high-IF glamour mags like Cell, Nature and Science have on our scientific culture is clearly a bad thing - for example, I'm hearing more and more stories about editors at these journals warping scientific stories directly or indirectly to be more press-worthy - and when combined with the reproducibility crisis I'm really worried about the short-term future of science. Journal Impact Factor and other simple metrics are fundamentally problematic and are contributing to the problem, along with the current peer review culture and a whole host of other things. (Mike Eisen has written about this a lot; see e.g. this post.)

In the long term I think a much more experimental culture of peer review and alternative metrics will emerge. But what do we do for now?

More importantly:

How can we change?

I think my main advice to faculty is "lead, follow, or get out of the way."

Unless you're a recognized big shot, or willing to take somewhat insane gambles with your career, "leading" may not be productive - following or getting out of the way might be best. But there are a lot of things you can do here that don't put you at much risk, including:

  • be open to a broader career picture when hiring and evaluating junior faculty;
  • argue on behalf of alternative metrics in meetings on promotion and tenure;
  • use sites like Google Scholar to pick out some recent papers to read in depth when hiring faculty and evaluating grants;
  • avoid making (or push back at) cheap shots at people who don't have a lot of high-impact-factor papers;
  • invest in career mentoring that is more nuanced than "try for lots of C-N-S papers or else" - you'd be surprised how often this is the main advice assistant professors take away...
  • believe in and help junior faculty that seem to have a plan, even if you don't agree with the plan (or at least leave them alone ;)

What if you are a recognized big shot? Well, there are lots of things you can do. You are the people who set the tone in the community and in your department, and it behooves you to think scientifically about the culture and reward system of science. The most important thing you can do is think and investigate. What evidence is there behind the value of peer review? Are you happy with C-N-S editorial policies, and have you talked to colleagues who get rejected at the editorial review stage more than you do? Have you thought about per-article metrics? Do you have any better thoughts on how to improve the system than 'fund more people', and how would you effect changes in this direction by recognizing alternate metrics during tenure and grant review?

The bottom line is that the current evaluation systems are the creation of scientists, for scientists. It's our responsibility to critically evaluate them, and perhaps evolve them when they're inadequate; we shouldn't just complain about how the current system is broken and wait for someone else to fix it.

Addendum: what would I like to see?

Precisely predicting the future importance of papers is obviously kind of silly - see this great 1994 paper by Gans and Shepherd on rejected classics papers, for example -- and is subject to all sorts of confounding effects. But this is nonetheless what journals are accustomed to doing: editors at most journals, especially the high impact factor ones, select papers based on projected impact before sending them out for review, and/or ask the reviewers to review impact as well.

So I think we should do away with impact review and review for correctness instead. This is why I'm such a big fan of PLOS One and PeerJ, who purport to do exactly that.

But then, I get asked, what do we do about selecting out papers to read? Some (many?) scientists claim that they need the filtering effect of these selective journals to figure out what they should be reading.

There are a few responses to this.

First, it's fundamentally problematic to outsource your attention to editors at journals, for reasons mentioned above. There's some evidence that you're being drawn into a manipulated and high-retraction environment by doing that, and that should worry you.

But let's say you feel you need something to tell you what to read.

Well, second, this is technologically solvable - that's what search engines already do. There's a whole industry of search engines that give great results based on integrating free text search, automatic content classification, and citation patterns. Google Scholar does a great job here, for example.

Third, social media (aka "people you know") provides some great recommendation systems! People who haven't paid much attention to Twitter or blogging may not have noticed, but in addition to person-to-person recommendations, there are increasingly good recommendation systems coming on line. I personally get most of my paper recs from online outlets (mostly people I follow, but I've found some really smart people to follow on Twitter!). It's a great solution!

Fourth, if one of the problems is that many journals review for correctness AND impact together, why not separate them? For example, couldn't journals like Science or Nature evolve into literature overlays that highlight papers published in impact-blind journals like PLOS One or PeerJ? I can imagine a number of ways that this could work, but if we're so invested in having editors pick papers for us, why not have them pick papers that have been reviewed for scientific correctness first, and then elevate them to our attention with their magic editorial pen?

I don't see too many drawbacks to this vs the current approach, and many improvements. (Frankly this is where I see most of scientific literature going, once preprint archives become omnipresent.)

So that's where I want and expect to see things going. I don't see ranking based on predicted impact going away, but I'd like to see it more reflective of actual impact (and be measured in more diverse ways).

--titus

p.s. People looking for citations of high retraction rate, problematic peer review, and the rest could look at one of my earlier blog posts on problems with peer review. I'd be interested in more citations, though!

Syndicated 2014-11-10 23:00:00 from Living in an Ivory Basement

Putting together an online presence for a diffuse academic community - how?

I would like to build a community site. Or, more precisely, I would like to recognize, collect, and collate information from an already existing but rather diffuse community.

The focus of the community will be academic data science, or "data driven discovery". This is spurred largely by the recent selection of the Moore Data Driven Discovery Investigators, as well as the earlier Moore and Sloan Data Science Environments, and more broadly by the recognition that academia is broken when it comes to data science.

So, where to start?

For a variety of reasons -- including the main practical one, that most academics are not terribly social media integrated and we don't want to try to force them to learn new habits -- I am focusing on aggregating blog posts and Twitter.

So, the main question is... how can we most easily collect and broadcast blog posts and articles via a Web site? And how well can we integrate with Twitter?

First steps and initial thoughts

Following Noam Ross's suggestions in the above storify, I put together a WordPress blog that uses the RSS Multi Importer to aggregate RSS feeds as blog posts (hosted on NFSN). I'd like to set this up for the DDD Investigators who have blogs; those who don't can be given accounts if they want to post something. This site also uses a Twitter feed plugin to pull in tweets from the list of DDD Investigators.

The resulting RSS feed from the DDDI can be pulled into a River of News site that aggregates a much larger group of feeds.

The WordPress setup was fairly easy and I'm going to see how stable it is (I assume it will be very stable, but shrug time will tell :). I'm upgrading my own hosting setup and once that's done, I'll try out River4.

Next steps and longer-term thoughts

Ultimately a data-driven-discovery site that has a bit more information would be nice; I could set up a mostly static site, post it on github, authorize a few people to merge, and then solicit pull requests when people want to add their info or feeds.

One thing to make sure we do is track only a portion of feeds for prolific bloggers, so that I, for example, have to tag a post specifically with 'ddd' to make it show up on the group site. This will avoid post overload.

I'd particularly like to get a posting set up that integrates well with how I consume content. In particular, I read a lot of things via my phone and tablet, and the ability to post directly from there -- probably via e-mail? -- would be really handy. Right now I mainly post to Twitter (and largely by RTing) which is too ephemeral, or I post to Facebook, which is a different audience. (Is there a good e-mail-to-RSS feed? Or should I just do this as a WordPress blog with the postie plug-in?)

The same overall setup could potentially work for a Software Carpentry Instructor community site, a Data Carpentry Instructor community site, trainee info sites for SWC/DC trainees, and maybe also a bioinformatics trainee info site. But I'd like to avoid anything that involves a lot of administration.

Things I want to avoid

Public forums.

Private forums that I have to administer or that aren't integrated with my e-mail (which is where I get most notifications, in the end).

Overly centralized solutions; I'm much more comfortable with light moderation ("what feeds do I track?") than anything else.


Thoughts?

--titus

Syndicated 2014-10-04 22:00:00 from Living in an Ivory Basement

PyCon 2014: Community, community, community. Also, childcare.

There were lots of problems with PyCon this year. For example, the free, hi-speed wifi made you log in each day. And it was in Montreal, so one of my foreign students couldn't come because he didn't get a visa in time. The company booths were not centrally located. And, worst of all, the PyCon mugs aren't dishwasher safe.

So, as you can imagine, I was pretty disappointed.

Haha, no, just kidding. PyCon 2014 was wonderful! For the first time, I brought quite a few people from my lab; my wife & two children (6 and 3 yro) also came, because it was driving distance from Michigan, and so we just packed everyone into a minivan and drive 700 miles.

Community

My labbies -- none of whom had ever been to PyCon before -- said that they really enjoyed the conference. In large part that was not just because of the talks, but because of all the subcommunity stuff that went on -- I heard that the various women-centric and LGBTQ meetups were great. The efforts to raise diversity and enforce the code of conduct at PyCon (especially in light of last years' happenings) paid off this year: I heard of no major CoC violations, and while mansplaining was apparently alive and well in some Q&A sessions, the overall atmosphere was really friendly and welcoming.

As Michael Crusoe pointed out to me, PyCon has clearly decided that they will focus on community more than technology -- which is probably the only truly sustainable path anyway. Highlighting this, there were plenty of talks on Python, and also plenty of talks on other things, including building community and raising awareness.

A particular highlight for me in this regard was Naomi Ceder's talk on being a member of the Python community both before and after she transitioned. What an amazing way to raise awareness, and what an excellent talk.

On Childcare

This was also the first year that PyCon had childcare. It was great! We brought our six and three year old girls, and they spent Friday, Saturday and Sunday of the conference in a meeting room in one of the conference hotels. Presumably it will be similarly located next year (PyCon 2015 will be in Montreal also), and I can't recommend it highly enough. Our girls loved it and were very happy to go back each day. They had activities, movies, and swimming - good fun.

I would suggest changing a few things next year -- first, it would be great if parents knew where childcare was going to be. As it was we stayed in the other hotel (Hyatt?), and had to walk from one hotel to the other (the Hilton, I think) before going to the conference. This extended our morning quite a bit; next year, if we bring the kids, it'd be nice to just walk them downstairs in the morning. Second, it might be nice to have the option of extending childcare a day or two; my wife had to take the children while I taught Software Carpentry on the Monday after the conference. We did make use of an in-room babysitter from the daycare to go out one evening, and that was great! She even taught our older child some French into the bargain.

From a larger perspective, it was super fun to have the kids at the conference without having to have either my wife or myself take care of 'em all the time. My wife (who is also technical) got to attend talks, as did I, and I got to introduce the kids to a few people (and make Jesse homesick for his kids) -- maybe next year we can do some more young-kid-focused gatherings?

My talk

I gave a talk again this year -- it was on instrumenting data-intensive pipelines for cloud computing. You can see all the things. It was reasonably well received; the crowd was smaller than my 2013 talk (video), because I'd avoided sexy keywords, but I got good questions and several people told me it had made them think differently about things, which is a nice outcome.

My talk was sandwiched between two other great talks, by Julia Evans (talking on Pandas) and David Beazley (talking about what happens when you lock him in a small enclosed space with a Windows computer that has Python installed along with several TB of C code). Julia's talk was hilariously high energy -- she gets way too excited about bike routes ;) -- and David's was, as usual, the highlight of the conference for me. You should go watch both of 'em.

Next year, I'm thinking about doing a talk on sequencing your own genome and interpreting the results with Python. I think that means I need to sequence my own genome first. You know, for science. Anyone got a spare $1000 lying around?

--titus

Syndicated 2014-05-04 22:00:00 from Living in an Ivory Basement

Tracy Teal's PyCon '14 submission: How I learned to stop worrying and love matplotlib

Note: This is a proposal being submitted by Tracy Teal (@tracykteal) for PyCon '14. I suggested she post it here for feedback, because she does not have her own blog. --titus


TITLE: How I learned to stop worrying and love matplotlib

CATEGORY: Science

DURATION: I prefer a 30 minute time slot

DESCRIPTION:

I was living a dual life, programming in Python and plotting in R, too worried to move R code to Python. Then I decided to make 100 plots in Python in 100 days. I documented the journey on a website, posting the plot & code in IPython Notebooks and welcoming comments. This talk will summarize lessons learned, including technical details, the process and the effects of learning in an online forum.

AUDIENCE:

Scientists interested in statistical computing with Python, those interested in learning more about NumPy and matplotlib.

PYTHON LEVEL: Beginner

OBJECTIVES

Attendees will see use cases for numpy and matplotlib, as well as one approach on how to succeed (or fail) at challenging yourself to learn something new.

DETAILED ABSTRACT:

Many scientific programmers use multiple languages for different applications, primarily because specific packages are available for their standard use cases or they're working with existing code. While these languages work well, it can limit the ability to integrate different components of a project in to one framework. The reasons not to use numpy, matplotlib and pandas is therefore often not technical, but the effort required to learn or develop a new approach when there are already so many demands on a scientist's time can be inhibiting. Additionally the development of new packages or integrated code bases are often not as valued in the academic structure.

I am one of those scientists, a microbial ecologist and bioinformatician, writing most of my code in Python and teaching it in Software Carpentry, but doing all my statistics in R. I like R and the R community and in particular, the ecological statistics package, vegan, so I haven’t felt the need to switch, but I realized my reluctance was mainly because I didn't know how to do the same things in Python, not that R was necessarily better for my workflow. So, I figured I should at least give it a try, but it was always a task on the back burner and not particularly interesting. Inspired by Jennifer Dewalt's 180 web sites in 180 days, the idea of making something in order to learn particular skills and the process of deliberate practice, I decided to start a project 100 plots in 100 days. In this project I will make a plot every (week)day for 100 days using Python. Plots encompass y=x to visualizations of multivariate statistics and genomic data. I use matplotlib, numpy and pandas, make the plots in IPython Notebook and post the notebook and comments about the process of creating that plot on my blog. I welcome comments to get more immediate feedback on the process.

This talk will focus on lessons learned during the project, both technical and about the process of learning - the expected and unexpected outcomes and how the involvement of community impacts practice.

OUTLINE

  • Intro (5 min)
  • Who am I?
  • Why this project?
  • Show the website
  • Lessons learned (18 min)
  • Technical lessons learned
  • numpy/matplotlib tricks or tips
  • any new statistical algorithms developed for numpy
  • Lessons learned about learning
  • Was this process good for learning something new? Why/ why not?
  • Deliberate practice has been shown to be the most effective way to get good at something. It involves working at something and getting feedback. Was this approach good for that?
  • Social aspects
  • Response to the project
  • Social pressures and accountability - does saying you'll do something publicly make you more likely to do it
  • Concluding remarks (2 min)
  • Would I do something like this again? Would I recommend it?
  • Questions (5 min)

ADDITIONAL NOTES

  • I'm just starting this project, inspired by both a recent Hacker News post on Jennifer Dewalt's 180 web sites in 180 days and the opportunity to present at PyCon. As such, at review time, I'll only be beginning the journey. Success for me for this project would be following through on the 100 plots in 100 (week)days, learning the fundamentals of numpy and matplotlib and making some neat and useful plots along the way. I'll share all the code for the statistics and each plot on the website, however ugly it may be. This could fail too. I could not be able to get beyond variations on a y=x plot and write terrible code. This talk will document both the success and the failures, as I hope I and others can learn from both. I do understand the risk of accepting a talk like this where I can't yet tell you what the lessons learned will be.
  • This would be my first time speaking at PyCon. I've spoken at many scientific conferences, been selected as an Everhart Lecturer at Caltech and received "Best Presentation" award at conferences. I've also been an instructor for five Software Carpentry bootcamps, including one for Women in Science and Engineering.

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

None

Syndicated 2013-09-13 22:00:00 from Living in an Ivory Basement

483 older entries...

 

titus certified others as follows:

  • titus certified mirwin as Apprentice
  • titus certified Demie as Journeyer
  • titus certified aero6dof as Journeyer
  • titus certified codedbliss as Journeyer
  • titus certified tcopeland as Journeyer
  • titus certified neoneye as Journeyer
  • titus certified hereticmessiah as Journeyer
  • titus certified esteve as Journeyer
  • titus certified demoncrat as Master
  • titus certified pipeman as Journeyer
  • titus certified cdfrey as Journeyer
  • titus certified Xorian as Journeyer
  • titus certified Ohayou as Apprentice
  • titus certified icherevko as Journeyer
  • titus certified bi as Journeyer

Others have certified titus as follows:

  • gnutizen certified titus as Journeyer
  • kai certified titus as Journeyer
  • lerdsuwa certified titus as Apprentice
  • mirwin certified titus as Master
  • wspace certified titus as Journeyer
  • sye certified titus as Apprentice
  • demoncrat certified titus as Journeyer
  • pipeman certified titus as Journeyer
  • hereticmessiah certified titus as Journeyer
  • esteve certified titus as Journeyer
  • cdfrey certified titus as Journeyer
  • StevenRainwater certified titus as Journeyer
  • Ankh certified titus as Apprentice
  • wingo certified titus as Journeyer
  • badvogato certified titus as Journeyer
  • oubiwann certified titus as Master
  • pvanhoof certified titus as Journeyer
  • markpratt certified titus as Journeyer
  • Omnifarious certified titus as Journeyer
  • caruzo certified titus as Master
  • fzort certified titus as Apprentice
  • bi certified titus as Journeyer
  • IainLowe certified titus as Journeyer
  • robby certified titus as Journeyer
  • percious certified titus as Master
  • kskuhlman certified titus as Journeyer
  • dangermaus certified titus as Master

[ Certification disabled because you're not logged in. ]

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!

X
Share this page