Not called "science" until the mid-nineteenth century, "natural philosophy" was science in the tradition of England's Royal Society (begun 1660), with its emphasis on Baconian induction, careful experiment, and refusal of any older science that could not be proven and demonstrated in a laboratory.

Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa (1486-1535) was author of *De Occulta Philosophia**, known to practice magic, and considered nonsensical by modern natural philosophy.

The early modern English physician William Harvey (1578-1627) made several valuable contributions to the medical sciences, including the circulation of blood in the human body. In De Motu Cordis (1628), Harvey sets down his landmark experiments; in these, Harvey used ligatures to stem blood flow to better understand how the heart works to pump blood throughout the human body. This knowledge will be critical for Victor's creation of the Creature.

Albertus Magnus (1193-1280) was also the teacher of St. Thomas Aquinas. He is often praised for his rejection of dogmatic philosophy and his stress on experimentation. Many books, including the Little Book on Alchemy, were falsely attributed to Magnus but likely written by Paracelsus.

Victor seems to regard himself as godlike in his research. Subsequently, he advances a personal ethics of creation about the specific "raw material" he uses for his experiments, and to the source of the raw material.

The philosophers stone was also called the elixir of life, or thought to create it, and to be useful for rejuvenation and for achieving immortality; for many centuries, the stone and the elixir were the most sought goal in alchemy.

Cadavers for anatomical training in this period were scarce, and thus a medical education meant to study and extend life also fostered serial killers who committed murders for the sake of selling fresh corpses. Such killing sprees were ended by the Anatomical Act of 1832 in England, which made corpses legally available for medical research.

By 1818 physiology had become a controversial branch of medicine at the center of the dispute between vitalism, the idea that a divine spark energized animal life, and materialism, the argument that chemical processes alone give rise to life. Mary Shelley was well aware of the dispute since the Shelleys' family doctor, William Lawrence, was vigorously taking up the materialist argument in works like An Introduction to Comparative Anatomy and Physiology (1816). For a full view of this controversy as it relates to the novel, see Marilyn Butler, "Frankenstein and Radical Science" [1993] reprinted in J. Paul Hunter, Frankenstein, Norton Critical Edition, second ed. (New York: Norton, 2012): 404-416.

Victor appears so engrossed in his creation that he forgets his discoveries are predicated on the previous research of scientists and natural philosophers. He fails to acknowledge that he "stands on the shoulders of giants," to use the phrase from Sir Issac Newton (1642-1726), including his teachers, a shortcoming indicative of pride of ownership.

"Creation" points toward popular literary themes, and to the Bible. It also calls into question property rights. John Locke (1632-1704) argued in Two Treatises of Government that applying one's labor to nature made that creation one's property. Shelley seems to call into question the relation of scientific research to the idea of ownership.

Victor's understanding of biological systems as machines was typical of nineteenth-century biology and physiology, and the debates between mechanists and vitalists, which still partially embraced the mechanistic perspective of human life advanced by Rene Descartes (1596-1650), and others.

In his book De Occulta Philosophia Agrippa suggested that God placed magic in the world to make man capable of transcending the natural sphere and able to influence the superior realms.

Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), the evolutionist and poet who lived in Birmingham, England, is clearly on Percy Shelley's mind when he introduces Mary's text in the 1818 edition. Critics of the novel have not often followed this lead in thinking about it as an early work in the British evolutionary imagination. Erasmus Darwin had made "not of impossible occurrence" that one presently visible species could mutate into another. Victor contemplates this possibility—as an alarming one—when he speculates in Volume 3, Chapter 3, that the Creature's demand that he create a "mate" could result in a new evolutionary development, "a race of devils."

Founded in 1472 in Bavaria, about 400 miles northeast of Geneva, this university became a leading center of scientific learning in the eighteenth century; the emergence of the Illuminati in 1776 also identified the university with the radical enlightenment.

The philosopher's stone, or "stone of the philosophers" (Latin: lapis philosophorum) was a legendary alchemical substance capable of turning base metals such as mercury into gold (chrysopoeia, from the Greek χρυσός khrusos, "gold," and ποιεῖν poiēin, "to make") or silver.

Paracelsus (1200-1280) was a medieval Swiss theologian and physician interested in alchemy and astrology, and a pioneer in the medical revolution of the German Renaissance. Albertus Magnus (1193-1280) was a German Catholic Dominican friar and bishop. Known as Albert the Great or later Saint Albert, Magnus also wrote on alchemy and was the first to comment on the writings of Aristotle and the teachings of Muslim academics, notably Avicenna and Averroes.

The special role of chemistry in Victor's apprenticeship to medicine links premodern sciences like alchemy to modern empirical science. Humphry Davy (1778-1829)was the contemporary British chemist who argued the chemistry was the key to all other sciences and useful arts of the time.

Victor explains his lack of any early scientific education as the reason he found medieval scientific works credible and often intoxicating. But while they may not have been versed in the sciences, Victor's parents educated him in languages, mathematics, and other kinds of knowledge prized by the Enlightenment.

This description recalls an experiment by Giovanni Aldini, a Professor of Experimental Philosophy at the University of Bologna, Italy. He was also Luigi Galvani’s nephew and a strong proponent of the latter’s work. In early 1803, Aldini conducted an electrical experiment on the corpse of Thomas Foster at Newgate Prison in London. A voltaic pile sent electric currents through the dead man’s body, causing it to contract and contort and one eye to open. Such experiments were well known to the Shelleys, who attended physiological lectures in London between 1802 and 1816.

Although the word comes from Arabic, "alchemy" has its roots in the ancient world, which seemed preoccupied with the transformation of materials, especially with turning base metals such as lead and tin into gold and silver. Both Victor's father and Professor Krempe sharply distinguish between the modern, rational science of chemistry and irrational, premodern alchemy.

In this 1831 revision, M. Waldman's influence depends less on his personality or charisma and more on his capabilities as a teacher.

In this lengthy addition to 1831, Victor experiences an early flash of ruinous ambition during the chemistry lecture by M. Waldman. The new picture of Waldman as an evil force belongs to a pattern of provoking suspicion about scientific education in the 1831 edition that did not appear in the 1818.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was a natural philosopher and is widely considered one of the most prominent figures of the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution.

Shelley adds this 1831 passage in which she traces Victor's fascination with alchemy and outmoded scientific ideas to an impetuous childhood, while the 1818 edition shows Victor reading the ancient sciences as an adult.

In this section, in 1831 three paragraphs of text replace a five-paragraph section in 1818.

Awed by the destructive power of the lightning-blast and their companions discourse on galvanism, Victor throws aside the "tormenting studies" of both medieval alchemy and natural philosophy which had hitherto fueled his sense of wonder and formed the basis of his intellectual obsessions. Turning instead to mathematics, he enjoys a brief respite from his torments, but his former desires will overtake him again.

In this revision for the 1831 edition, Victor narrates a period of exploration and disillusionment with the emergent discourse of modern rational science, encapsulated here by the figure of Newton.

Aurora Borealis or "northern lights" appear in the Arctic skies, a nighttime phenomenon caused by turbulence in the magnetosphere.

This added text in the Thomas Copy is the only reference to the Creature as a "giant" in any version of Frankenstein. By the early nineteenth century giants were a distant figure of folklore rather than everyday experience, as Walton notes by thinking of the giant as an "optical delusion." The Creature in the novel measures at about eight feet tall.

A nice quote on the variability of humans & their best diets.

Sense Collective's Climate Tagger API and Pool Party Semantic Web plug-in are perfectly suited to support The Wilson Center's metadata schema project. Creating a common metadata schema that is used across multiple organizations working within the same domain, with similar (and overlapping) data and data types, is an essential step towards realizing collective intelligence. There is significant redundancy that consumes limited resources as organizations often perform the same type of data structuring. Interoperability issues between organizations, their metadata semantics and serialization methods, prevent cumulative progress as a community. Sense Collective's MetaGrant program is working to provide a shared infastructure for NGO's and social impact investment funds and social impact bond programs to help rapidly improve the problems that are being solved by this awesome project of The Wilson Center. Now let's extend the coordinated metadata semantics to 1000 more organizations and incentivize the citizen science volunteers who make this possible, with a closer connection to the local benefits they produce through their efforts. With integration into Social impact Bond programs and public/private partnerships, we are able to incentivize collective action in ways that match the scope and scale of the problems we face.

question?

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Phew.. Dense read. M&M used a dataset that did not measure the traits they're addressing. A larger review of multiple datasets showed different results.

McHugh & Mayer cherry-picked their data to fit their desired results.

science communication - art + science

Thought exercise. Modern "Zen koan".

type design as a means to convey scientific meaning

Visual communication has scientifically proven grounds; it is not just some obscur magic from an artistic genius

Traditional distinction between form and content

diagrams of vining roses like rambling sentence diagrams

interesting images

Überlegen Sie, wie die Technikfolgenabschätzung durch die Perspektive der Science Fiction bereichert werden könnte!

purple colour

west culture:

• black = finality, death, formality
• white = purity, peace

east culture:

• white = death
• black = wealth, health, prosperity

There is no universal guide in choosing website colours. Go with your own intuition

Effect of colour

• Red – Passionate, Aggressive, Important
• Orange – Playful, Energetic, Cheap
• Yellow – Happy, Friendly, Warning
• Green – Natural, Stable, Prosperous
• Blue – Serene, Trustworthy, Inviting
• Violet – Luxurious, Mysterious, Romantic
• Pink – Feminine, Young, Innocent
• Black – Powerful, Sophisticated, Edgy
• Brown – Earthy, Sturdy, Rustic
• Grey – Neutral, Formal, Gloomy
• White – Clean, Virtuous, Healthy
• Beige – Accentuates surrounding colours

We can only pick up the visible spectrum

The theory of colour

2 primary colour systems:

1. Primary: can not be made from any other colours
2. Secondary: formed by mixing the primary colours
3. Tertiary: formed by mixing primary and secondary colours

Google Translate translation into English:

Freedom of information. The movement behind Open Science will soften the academic evaluation culture and pull researchers out of the clutches of journals. Interview with one of the movement's front figures, the "detached paleontologist" Jon Tennant.

All data is born free

By RASMUS EGMONT FOSS

More and more researchers are frustrated by the state of science in 2019. Academic journals have too much power over research, they say. Many test results cannot be reproduced. And they are tired of being measured and weighed with a wealth of numbers that quantify the fruits of their labor. In a revolt against the prevailing norms, a growing number of dissatisfied scientists are gathering in these years behind the Open Science movement. People are angry about many things: publishers' profit margins. The time it takes to publish in journals. The way they are evaluated. Open Science is a reaction to all that, a counter-movement that brings together the frustration of a big wave that no one really knows what stands for or where to go, says British Jon Tennant, one of the leading proponents of the movement. Tennant has paused a promising career in paleontology and travels around the world as a "looser" for years to spread the enthusiasm for an open science. In particular, he has been noted as the founder of Open Science MOOC, an online community and educational platform in the field. He is currently visiting the University of Southern Denmark. The broad group of supporters ranges from those who simply want scars to make all academic articles freely available on the web, to those who want to revolutionize the work of researchers. They strive to engage colleagues in every aspect of their work, for example, by exchanging ideas, releasing early data, or the crowdsource editing process. Several organizations and scientists are joining the cause in these years. The movement is particularly characterized by iniciacives such as Plan S, a project to release all government-funded research from 2021, which is, among other things, larger by the European Commission. Also, foundations such as the Gates Foundation have promoted the ideas by forcing all beneficiaries to share their data. Common to followers is that they will bring modern research closer to the real purpose of science, as they see it: to increase the knowledge base of society by working in groups rather than in silos. Several of them have now started pointing fingers at the universities' growing evaluation culture as the main obstacle to achieving that goal. It distorts researchers' motivation and creates an unhealthy environment, they say. The biggest problem today is how scientists are measured and who has control over that evaluation system, Jon Tennant believes. Researchers are to a greater extent measured by how much and how much they publish than what they publish. It gives wrong incentives. At the same time, the evaluation process itself is guided by the commercial interests of a narrow group of publishers who do not always share the researchers' interests. Today, scientists are not in control of systems, and that is a major problem, he elaborates.

JON Tennant and the Open Science movement will do away with what German sociologist Steffen Mau has dubbed “the quantification culture of science. Over the past few decades, many universities have begun to adapt their culture to live up to the rankings and scoring systems that give prestige in the field. In the researchers' everyday life, factors such as circulation rates and h-indices (a measure of a researcher's influence) as well as the impact factors of journals, for example, have gained great importance for their career and reputation among colleagues. The voices behind Open Science want a new model. It must promote quality research and be responsible to the community rather than narrow interests. The first step is to expand access to academic articles. Researchers need to be able to build on everyone's work, and private publishers should not have the power over the product, they say. According to advocates like Jon Tennant, we should also open up the entire scientific process by using the Internet better. The journals must still have a place in the system, but today their old-fashioned model stands in the way of communicating our research effectively. We are not taking advantage of network technology opportunities well enough, he says. From a new idea arises, until the method is developed, data is obtained and the conclusions are available, everyone should be able to follow and propose improvements, the invitation reads. For example, researchers should publish their plans for new projects before they begin collecting data (a so-called pre-registration) and should be encouraged to share their results before the article is published (a micro-publication). But as long as publishers such as Elsevier and Springer Nature have power over researchers' careers, researchers lack the incentive to collaborate openly and inspire each other, Jon Tennant believes. A more open and free process could also solve the reproducibility crisis in science by making studies more transparent. At the same time, it has the potential to prevent large amounts of time wasting, as researchers will be able to see other people's failed projects before starting their own. OPEN Science is part of a larger modern movement, which, according to Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari, is "the first since 1789 to invent a whole new freedom of value information. There is the idea that data has the right to be free and that humans should not restrict its movements. The mindset is the phloxof behind projects like Wikipedia, Google and Open Source in software programming. Based on that logic, the power must lie with the community and not a narrow group of editors when the quality of the researchers' work needs to be assessed (for it must, after all). We should not discard the peer review model, merely reform it, says Jon Tennant: We still need to evaluate the quality of research, but we should take advantage of opportunities in online community and networking. However, a new evaluation culture has its own pitfalls, and the biggest uncertainties about the Open Science agenda stem from this. Prestigious journals such as Nature and Science give scientists and lay people confidence that their articles are trustworthy. Everyone needs these kinds of pointers when navigating the academic world. At the same time, there is no guarantee that the quality of research will increase when the masses decide. The risk of a democratic evaluation system is that it creates a new and more intense quantification cult, where research articles are instead measured on colleagues' ratings, as we know it from services like Uber and Tripadvisor. Competition for prestige is an inevitable part of any industry, and today's race will simply be replaced by a new one - on other terms. Here, other studies will lose the battle, probably those with a narrower appeal. The established institutions have an ambivalent relationship with the Open Science movement. Leaders at universities and publishers positively mention it in closed forums, Jon Tennant says, but would rather stick to their existing benefits as long as they can. They also hesitate because the consequences of the new regime are unpredictable. Everyone is scared to move like the first, he says.

Original content in Danish:

Informationsfrihed. Bevægelsen bag Open Science vil mildne den akademiske evalueringskultur og trække forskerne ud af tidsskrifternes kløer. Interview med en af bevægelsens frontfigurer, den «løsgående palæontolog» Jon Tennant.

Alle data er født frie

Af RASMUS EGMONT FOSS

Flere og flere forskere er frustrerede over videnskabens tilstand anno 2019. Udgiverne af akademiske tidsskrifter har for stor magt over forskningen, siger de. Mange forsøgsresultater kan ikke reproduceres. Og de er trætte af at blive målt og vejet med et væld af tal, som kvantificerer frugten af deres arbejde. I et oprør mod de herskende normer samler et stigende antal utilfredse forskere sig i disse år bag bevægelsen Open Science. Folk er vrede over mange ting: Udgivernes profitmargener. Tiden, der tager at publicere i tidsskrifter. Måden, de bliver evalueret på. Open Science er en reaktion mod alt det, en modbevægelse, der samler frustrationen i en stor bølge, som ingen rigtigt ved, hvad står for, eller hvor bevæger sig hen, fortæller britiske Jon Tennant, en af de førende fortalere for bevægelsen. Tennant har sat en lovende karriere inden for palæonrologien på pause og rejser verden rundt som «løsgænger« for ar udbrede begejstringen for en åben videnskab. Han har især gjort sig bemærket som stifter af Open Science MOOC, et online fællesskab og uddannelsesplatform på området. I disse måneder er han på besøg på Syddansk Universitet. Den brede gruppe af støtter spænder fra dem, der blot ønsker ar gøre alle akademiske artikler frit tilgængelige på nettet, til dem, som ligefrem vil revolucionere forskernes arbejde. De stræber efter at indvie kolleger i alle aspekter af deres arbejde, for eksempel ved at udveksle ideer, frigive tidlige data eller crowdsource redigeringsprocessen. Adskillige organisationer og videnskabsfolk slutter sig til sagen i disse år. Bevægelsen er især kendetegnet ved iniciaciver som Plan S, et projekt om at frigive al statsfinansieret forskning fra 2021, der blandt andet størres af EU-Kommissionen. Også fonde som Gates Foundation har fremmet ideerne ved at tvinge alle støttemodtagere til at dele deres data. Fælles for tilhængerne er, at de vil bringe den moderne forskning tættere på videnskabens ækte formål, som de ser der: at forøge samfundets vidensbase ved at arbejde i flok frem for i siloer. Flere af dem er nu begyndt at pege fingre ad universiteternes voksende evalueringskultur som den vigtigste hindring til at nå det mål. Den forvrænger forskernes motivation og skaber er usundt miljø, siger de. Det største problem i dag er, hvordan forskere bliver målt, og hvem der har kontrollen over det evalueringssystem, mener Jon Tennant. Forskere bliver i højere grad målt på, hvor og hvor meget de publicerer, end hvad de udgiver. Det giver forkerte incitamencer. Samtidig er selve evalueringsprocessen styret af kommercielle interesser hos en snæver gruppe udgivere, som ikke altid deler forskernes interesser. I dag er forskerne ikke i kontrol over systemer, og det er et stort problem, uddyber han.

JON Tennant og Open Science-bevægelsen vil gøre op med det, som den tyske sociolog Steffen Mau har døbt "kvantificeringskulturen i videnskaben. Over de seneste årtier er mange universiteter begyndt ar tilpasse deres kultur for at leve op til de ranglister og pointsystemer, som giver prestige på feltet. l forskernes hverdag har faktorer som cirationsrater og h-indeks (en målestok for en forskers indflydelse) samt tidsskrifternes impact factors for eksempel opnået stor betydning for deres karriere og anseelse blandt kolleger. Stemmerne bag Open Science ønsker en ny model. Den skal fremme kvalitetsforskning og være ansvarlig over for fællesskabet frem for snævre interesser. Første skridt er ar udbrede adgangen til akademiske artikler. Forskere skal kunne bygge videre på alles arbejde, og private udgivere bør ikke have magten over produktet, siger de. I følge talsmænd som Jon Tennant bør vi også åbne hele den videnskabelige proces op ved at bruge internettet bedre. Tidsskrifterne skal fortsat have en plads i systemet, men idag står deres gammeldags model i vejen for at kommunikere vores forskning effektivt. Vi udnytter slet ikke netværksteknologiens muligheder godt nok, siger han. Fra en ny ide opstår, til metoden udvikles, data indhentes, og konklusionerne foreligger, skal alle kunne følge med og foreslå forbedringer, lyder opfordringen. Forskere bør for eksempel publicere deres planer for nye projekter, inden de går i gang med at indsamle data (en såkalt førregistrering) , og de skal opfordres til at dele deres resultater, før artiklen udkommer (en mikroudgivelse). Men så længe udgivere som Elsevier og Springer Nature har magt over forskernes karrierer, mangler forskerne incitamentet ril at samarbejde åbent og inspirere hinanden, mener Jon Tennant. En mere åben og fri proces vil også kunne løse reproducerbarhedskrisen i videnskaben ved at gøre studier mere transparente. Samtidig har det potentialet til at forhindre store mængder tidsspilde, da forskere vil kunne se andres fejlslagne projekter, før de begynder deres eget. OPEN Science er del af en større moderne bevægelse, som ifølge den israelske historiker Yuval Noah Harari er "den første siden 1789, der har opfundet en helt ny værdiinformationsfrihed. Der er ideen om, ar data har ret til at være frit, og at mennesker ikke bør begrænse dets bevægelser. Tankesættet udgør fllosofien bag projekter som Wikipedia, Google og Open Source inden for softwareprogrammering. Ud fra den logik skal magten ligge hos fællesskabet og ikke en smal gruppe af redaktører, når kvaliteten af forskernes arbejde skal vurderes (for der skal den trods alt). Vi skal ikke kassere peer review-modellen, blot reformere den, siger Jon Tennant: Vi skal stadig evaluere kvaliteten af forskningen, men vi bør udnytte mulighederne i online fællesskab og netværk. En ny evalueringskultur har dog sine egne faldgruber, og de største usikkerheder ved agendaen i Open Science stammer herfra. Prestigefyldte tidsskrifter som Nature og Science giver forskere og lægfolk tillid til, at deres artikler er troværdige. Alle har brug for den slags pejlemærker, når de skal navigere i den akademiske verden. Der er samtidig ingen garanti for, at forskningens kvalitet stiger, når masserne bestemmer. Risikoen ved et demokratisk evalueringssysrem er, at det skaber en ny og mere intens kvantificeringskult, hvor forskningsarcikler istedet måles på kollegernes ratinger, som vi kender det fra tjenester som Uber og Tripadvisor. Konkurrencen om prestige er en uundgåelig del af enhver branche, og dagens ræs vil blot erstattes af et nyt – på andre præmisser. Her vil andre studier tabe kampen, formentlig dem med en smallere appel. De etablerede institutioner har et ambivalent forhold til Open Science-bevægelsen. Ledere hos universiteter og udgivere omtaler den positivt i lukkede fora, fortæller Jon Tennant, men vil helst holde fast i deres eksisterende fordele, så længe de kan. De tøver også, fordi konsekvenserne af det nye regime er uforudsigelige. Alle er bange for ar flytte sig som de første, siger han.

Find one of the best manufacturers of portable sinks to get portable sinks for classrooms. MONSAM Portable Sinks offer a wide range of portable sinks for the science lab workstations. Visit their website, to order one for your science lab.

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

Transparent Peer Review

Download the complete Review Process [PDF] including:

• reviews
• authors' reply
• editorial decisions

</br>

this is funny

Heidegger: "Every science is constituted primarily by thematizing" || Just as Heidegger does not reject facticity outright he is equally careful in his critique of the limits of thematization. Indeed, the two discussions seem to correspond on many points. Is thematization a kind of meta-factualization? A factualization with a temporal component?

How can I build this into my curriculum?

another body working on scholarly comms infrastructure - but for AI

Blaming various cultures as being anti-science has come a long way for the western world. Their viewpoint however is based on the kind of socio-cultural backdrop of their own society and fails to understand or accommodate ideas from cultures that are different from theirs.

a nice way to put it