More is not always better, sometimes it is just more

Antonio Salar Silvestre

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2024.285019

2024-03-29

Haematologica

Abstract:Not available. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

hematology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Do it once, but do it right

Layal Yasin,Arndt Borkhardt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2024.285246

2024-04-25

Haematologica

Abstract:Not available. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

hematology
More Really is Different

Mile Gu,Christian Weedbrook,Alvaro Perales,Michael A. Nielsen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2008.12.016

2008-09-01

Abstract:In 1972, <a class="link-external link-http" href="http://P.W.Anderson" rel="external noopener nofollow">this http URL</a> suggested that `More is Different', meaning that complex physical systems may exhibit behavior that cannot be understood only in terms of the laws governing their microscopic constituents. We strengthen this claim by proving that many macroscopic observable properties of a simple class of physical systems (the infinite periodic Ising lattice) cannot in general be derived from a microscopic description. This provides evidence that emergent behavior occurs in such systems, and indicates that even if a `theory of everything' governing all microscopic interactions were discovered, the understanding of macroscopic order is likely to require additional insights.

Other Condensed Matter,Quantum Physics
Curatio et Innovatio

Roberto Rossi

2021-08-10

Abstract:The Middle Ages focused obsessively on the old; our era is totally absorbed with the new. In medio stat virtus. In this short note, I advocate a strategy that blends copyright and copyleft for disseminating research results in the sciences. I argue that such a blend may be beneficial in fields such as mathematics and computer science, that it may facilitate the evolution and emergence of improved problem descriptions, whilst at the same time preserving author's rights, and easing researchers' work.

Digital Libraries
[Human reason versus arrogance technoscience and the replacement shadow. -Ethical evaluation and social control to regain power on the means and ends from the work of José Sanmartín]

Amparo Aygües Cejalvo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30444/CB.172

Abstract:This essay analyzes from a personalistic bioethics the model of technological progress supported by an autonomy without controls and an imperative that is governed by the maxim: if it can be done, let's do it!, as a necessary and sufficient condition of progress. This puts us on the slippery slope between the technically feasible and the morally lawful. The pioneering work of the philosopher, José Sanmartin Esplugues 2 , urges reflection in the face of a technological profusion that sees the human being as a useful embodied object and offers powers of intervention on human life that were previously unimaginable. The reduction of the person to mere biological-material data opens the door to increasing deshumanization by subordination to the calculations of an instrumental rationalism. Underlying the desire to see ourselves at the top of the world and genetic techniques are the ultimate expression of a longing for human emancipation that aspires to take the reins of evolution through an abstract postbiological imaginary. Sanmartin proposes a model of ethical evaluation and social insertion of technoscientific activity that goes beyond the conventional categories of impact, use and effectiveness to distinguish social, cultural, economic, political and values correlates, in order to embroider a pattern that decides on the means and ends of human life through technologies that are neither innocuous nor neutral. A society without antidotes to manipulation that also teaches us to cultivate utopian dreams about human nature is easily malleable by elites who promise happy worlds and redeem us from our vulnerability.
Time to Stop and Think: What kind of research do we want to do?

Josu Ceberio, Borja Calvo

2024-02-14

Abstract:Experimentation is an intrinsic part of research in artificial intelligence since it allows for collecting quantitative observations, validating hypotheses, and providing evidence for their reformulation. For that reason, experimentation must be coherent with the purposes of the research, properly addressing the relevant questions in each case. Unfortunately, the literature is full of works whose experimentation is neither rigorous nor convincing, oftentimes designed to support prior beliefs rather than answering the relevant research questions. In this paper, we focus on the field of metaheuristic optimization, since it is our main field of work, and it is where we have observed the misconduct that has motivated this letter. Even if we limit the focus of this manuscript to the experimental part of the research, our main goal is to sew the seed of sincere critical assessment of our work, sparking a reflection process both at the individual and the community level. Such a reflection process is too complex and extensive to be tackled as a whole. Therefore, to bring our feet to the ground, we will include in this document our reflections about the role of experimentation in our work, discussing topics such as the use of benchmark instances vs instance generators, or the statistical assessment of empirical results. That is, all the statements included in this document are personal views and opinions, which can be shared by others or not. Certainly, having different points of view is the basis to establish a good discussion process.

Artificial Intelligence
Don't let perfect be the enemy of better: In defense of unparameterized megastudies

Wei Li,Joshua K. Hartshorne

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x23002121

2024-01-01

Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Abstract:Abstract The target article argues researchers should be more ambitious, designing studies that systematically and comprehensively explore the space of possible experiments in one fell swoop. We argue that while “systematic” is rarely achievable, “comprehensive” is often enough. Critically, the recent popularization of massive online experiments shows that comprehensive studies are achievable for most cognitive and behavioral research questions.

behavioral sciences,neurosciences,psychology, biological
On the quest for novelty in ecology

Gianluigi Ottaviani,Alejandro Martínez,Matteo Petit Bon,Stefano Mammola

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.27.530333

2024-09-17

Abstract:The volume of scientific publications is ever increasing, making it difficult for scholars to publish papers that can capture the attention of the readers. An obvious way to attract readership is by making a truly significant discovery; yet another way may involve tweaking the language to overemphasize the novelty of results. Using a dataset of 52,236 paper abstracts published between 1997 and 2017 in 17 ecological journals, we found that the relative frequency of the use of novelty terms (e.g. groundbreaking, new) almost doubled over time. Conversely, we found no such pattern with the use of confirmatory terms (e.g. replicated, reproducibility). While increasing research opportunities are triggering advances in ecology, the writing style of authors and publishing habits of journals may better reflect the inherent confirmatory nature of ecology. We call for an open discussion among researchers about potential reasons and implications associated with this language-use and scientometrics matter.

Ecology
The Changing Landscape of Scholarly Publishing (in Finance) – An Author’s view

Manuel Tarrazo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/irhe.v8n2p6

2023-09-25

International Research in Higher Education

Abstract:This note originated as part of the author’s regular research publishing activity. The author’s and colleagues’ experiences suggested broadening the usual examination of potential outlets. What we encountered was not “more of the same” from previous searches for outlets but very significant fundamental changes in the academic/scholarly publishing landscape. We first review the standard research process in the context of academic tenure and promotions. The we proceed to identify and enumerate potential publishing outlets, which we further classify into groups reflecting these critical differences meaningful for academic authors and their supervisors: nature of the outlet (for profit, not for profit; commercial, academic, and professional), open versus restricted access, peer-reviewing, and nature of the final article depository. What we consider the usual way to go about publishing shows many disruptions that do not benefit authors, such as major (commercial) publishers favoring a certain type of article and engaging in massive desk-rejection practices as well as less powerful publishers either closing down or imposing restrictions (words, reviewers), with serious unintended consequences. The traditional scholarly publishing model of requiring a given number of articles every x years may have become unsustainable, as it is extremely expensive and does not favor disinterested research. On the plus side, we find increasing publishing opportunities for authors, but these alternative opportunities might imply decisions that do not fit the traditional evaluation approach and might require innovative agreements between faculty and their academic supervisors.
The Formative Value of a Room of One's Own and its Use in a Hyperconnected World

ALBERTO SÁNCHEZ ROJO

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12306

2018-09-06

Journal of Philosophy of Education

Abstract:<div class="abstract-group"> <section class="article-section article-section__abstract" lang="en" data-lang="en" id="section-1-en"> <h3 class="article-section__header main abstractlang_en main">Abstract</h3> <div class="article-section__content en main"> <p>With the rise of Modernity, times and spaces became tightly controlled: a space for every time, a time for every space and a particular way of behaving in each. To ward off the fear that this might stifle the free development of truly personal identity, the moderns created a room of one's own. This space gave one the chance to be alone with oneself and to stop to think about the world, other people and the role one was called to play. This article aims to show, firstly, the extent to which a room of one's own has been—and still is—a fundamental formative space. Secondly, it analyses how such a room is currently used in a world where information and communication technologies tend to fill up every space, thereby hindering the enjoyment of solitude. Finally, it concludes with the need to bring back its traditional use if we want the new generations to keep developing as individuals, with their own authentic and, especially, autonomous personalities.</p>

education & educational research,history of social sciences
Information content versus word length in natural language: A reply to Ferrer-i-Cancho and Moscoso del Prado Martin [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1209.1751" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1209.1751">arXiv:1209.1751</a>]

Steven T. Piantadosi,Harry Tily,Edward Gibson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1307.6726

2013-07-25

Abstract:Recently, Ferrer i Cancho and Moscoso del Prado Martin [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1209.1751" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1209.1751">arXiv:1209.1751</a>] argued that an observed linear relationship between word length and average surprisal (Piantadosi, Tily, & Gibson, 2011) is not evidence for communicative efficiency in human language. We discuss several shortcomings of their approach and critique: their model critically rests on inaccurate assumptions, is incapable of explaining key surprisal patterns in language, and is incompatible with recent behavioral results. More generally, we argue that statistical models must not critically rely on assumptions that are incompatible with the real system under study.

Computation and Language,Probability,Data Analysis, Statistics and Probability
The Remixing Dilemma: The Trade-off Between Generativity and Originality

Benjamin Mako Hill,Andrés Monroy-Hernández

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212469359

2015-07-06

Abstract:In this paper we argue that there is a trade-off between generativity and originality in online communities that support open collaboration. We build on foundational theoretical work in peer production to formulate and test a series of hypotheses suggesting that the generativity of creative works is associated with moderate complexity, prominent authors, and cumulativeness. We also formulate and test three hypotheses that these qualities are associated with decreased originality in resulting derivatives. Our analysis uses a rich data set from the Scratch Online Community --a large web-site where young people openly share and remix animations and video games. We discuss the implications of this trade-off for the design of peer production systems that support amateur creativity.

Computers and Society,Human-Computer Interaction,Social and Information Networks
The limits of progress in the digital era

Joaquin Luque

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.05082

2024-09-08

Abstract:The concept of progress clearly percolates the activities in science, technology, economy and society. It is a driving vector (probably the main vector) of our daily activity as researchers. The InThisGen initiative, proudly displayed in places across the University of Berkeley campus, and its headline lemma (what can we change in a single generation?) are clear exponents of the underlying assumption that progress is not only possible but also desirable. But about the concept of progress two major concerns arise. First of all, progress means some kind of going forward, that is a direction in a journey. But deciding the way in the route clearly implies that we are explicit or implicitly defining the goals, as individuals and as society. That is, the concept of progress has a set of underlying values. Additionally, the conceptual paradigm in scientific research (and probably in the whole spirit of our times) it is assuming some kind of endless progress. It is true that many technological innovations and their subsequent impact on society have found resistance, from Luddites to ecologist movements. But the last 150 years (the age of our university) have been witness of an enormous and general increase in knowledge, wealth and welfare, showing how progress can be sustained in the long-term and positively influence the human beings and the society. In this contribution will try to discuss these bounds, addressing the limits of materials, scientific knowledge and technological know-how. We will mainly focus on the limitations in technological knowledge in the software design, a key aspect of the digital era. Our main thesis, which will be addressed through the paper, is that there are intrinsic limits to technological knowledge and the concept of progress should take them into account.

Computers and Society
Making life and mind as clear as possible, but not clearer

Alex Gomez-Marin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22000127

2022-09-29

Abstract:Neuroscience needs theory. Ideas without data are blind, and yet mechanisms without concepts are empty. Friston's free energy principle paradigmatically illustrates the power and pitfalls of current theoretical biology. Mighty metaphors, turned into mathematical models, can become mindless metaphysics. Then, seeking to understand everything in principle, we may explain nothing in practice. Life can't live in a map.
Innovation Is Overrated: A Provocation

Filippo Gualtiero Blancato

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3624727

IF: 22.7

2024-02-24

Communications of the ACM

Abstract:Digital innovation is not working in the interest of the whole of society. It is time to radically rethink its purpose without sacrificing the benefits it entails.

computer science, theory & methods, software engineering, hardware & architecture
More is Better in Modern Machine Learning: when Infinite Overparameterization is Optimal and Overfitting is Obligatory

James B. Simon,Dhruva Karkada,Nikhil Ghosh,Mikhail Belkin

2024-05-16

Abstract:In our era of enormous neural networks, empirical progress has been driven by the philosophy that more is better. Recent deep learning practice has found repeatedly that larger model size, more data, and more computation (resulting in lower training loss) improves performance. In this paper, we give theoretical backing to these empirical observations by showing that these three properties hold in random feature (RF) regression, a class of models equivalent to shallow networks with only the last layer trained.

Machine Learning
The debatable notion of "novelty deficiency" in significant conservation domains

Marcello FRANCHINI

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1749-4877.12828

2024-04-18

Integrative Zoology

Abstract:In significant conservation domains, rejecting papers to prioritize novelty, may impede scientific and social progress as these studies carry crucial policy and practical implications. The research's rigor (rather than novelty) should be the primary criterion for evaluating the works' robustness and suitability for publication. Innovation is essential, but science requires a balanced approach, encompassing both conceptual innovation and practical research.

zoology
Plea to publish less

Navinder Singh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.07985

2021-10-08

Abstract:Recent research\cite{fort} has shown that in the 20th century there is an exponential growth of the number of published scientific papers, but new ideas has only a linear growth with time. The 19th and the first half of the 20th century saw major scientific discoveries. But from the second half of the 20th century, the number of publications far exceeds the number of impactful discoveries. Does an exponentially growing number of publications indicate an element of pathological research? Pressure to publish a large number of papers has led to the phenomena of overproduction, unnecessary fragmentations, overselling, predatory journals (pay and publish), clever plagiarism, and deliberate obfuscation of scientific results so as to sell and oversell. This is harming the healthy scientific culture of passion driven research. It is an urgent problem which needs attention of the whole of the scientific community. Some ways to mitigate these grave problems are discussed.

Physics and Society
Each to their own

Sian Lewis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-0306-2

IF: 38.755

2020-04-23

Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Abstract:Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Published online: 23 April 2020; doi:10.1038/s41583-020-0306-2Each to their own

neurosciences
Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen

Alonzo Alfaro-Núñez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00659-3

Abstract:Background: Today, scientists and academic researchers experience an enormous pressure to publish innovative and ground-breaking results in prestigious journals. This pressure may blight the general view concept of how scientific research needs to be done in terms of the general rules of transparency; duplication of data, and co-authorship rights might be compromised. As such, misconduct acts may occur more frequently than foreseen, as frequently these experiences are not openly shared or discussed among researchers. Main body: While there are some concerns about the health and the transparency implications of such normalised pressure practices imposed on researchers in scientific research, there is a general acceptance that researchers must take and accept it in order to survive in the competitive world of science. This is even more the case for junior and mid-senior researchers who have recently started their adventure into the universe of independent researchers. Only the slightest fraction manages to endure, after many years of furious and cruel rivalry, to obtain a long-term, and even less probable, permanent position. There is an evil circle; excellent records of good publications are needed in order to obtain research funding, but how to produce pioneering research during these first years without funding? Many may argue this is a necessary process to ensure good quality scientific investigation, possibly, but perseverance and resilience may not be the only values needed when rejection is received consecutively for years. Conclusion: There is a general culture that scientists rarely share previous bad experiences, in particular if they were associated to misconduct, as they may not be seen or considered as a relevant or hot topic to the scientific community readers. On next, a recent misconduct experience is shared, and a few additional reflections and suggestions on this topic were drafted in the hope other researchers might be spared unnecessary and unpleasant times.
Dr. Strangelove or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the citations

Alberto Saracco

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2002.09371

2020-02-21

Abstract:Citations are getting more and more important in the career of a researcher. But how to use them in the best possible way? This is a satirical paper, showing a bad trend currently happening in citation trends, due to intensive use of citation metrics. I am putting this on the arXiv and on Researchgate. Should you be interested to publish this paper on a journal of which you are editor, let me know.

Digital Libraries

More is not always better, sometimes it is just more

Do it once, but do it right

More Really is Different

Curatio et Innovatio

[Human reason versus arrogance technoscience and the replacement shadow. -Ethical evaluation and social control to regain power on the means and ends from the work of José Sanmartín]

Time to Stop and Think: What kind of research do we want to do?

Don't let perfect be the enemy of better: In defense of unparameterized megastudies

On the quest for novelty in ecology

The Changing Landscape of Scholarly Publishing (in Finance) – An Author’s view

The Formative Value of a Room of One's Own and its Use in a Hyperconnected World

Information content versus word length in natural language: A reply to Ferrer-i-Cancho and Moscoso del Prado Martin [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1209.1751" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1209.1751">arXiv:1209.1751</a>]

The Remixing Dilemma: The Trade-off Between Generativity and Originality

The limits of progress in the digital era

Making life and mind as clear as possible, but not clearer

Innovation Is Overrated: A Provocation

More is Better in Modern Machine Learning: when Infinite Overparameterization is Optimal and Overfitting is Obligatory

The debatable notion of "novelty deficiency" in significant conservation domains

Plea to publish less

Each to their own

Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen

Dr. Strangelove or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the citations