Dan Visioni

Very Famous Academic once complained to me he had published a super paper with a super model but no1 was using the underlying data to build upon. When I asked if he knew if data was available, or how others could access it, I just got a blank stare. Your data is useless if you don’t offer support! 🙃

So yes, nobody should be evaluated on raw numbers, but also, let's expand our definition of "quality" beyond some of the usual considerations, that are also heavily skewed towards a few highly elitist metrics. If your paper doesn't have a public methodology, I don't care how smart it sounds.

This would also move us away from evaluating people based on highly influential papers as a measure of quality (usually only within reach for those in "famous" groups, lots of gatekeeping in some journals...), and more towards how, holistically, they're contributing to community knowledge.

I think @egu.eu journals are the best ones at doing this already: reviews and rebuttals are public, a reader can get an idea about what happened as an iterative process. Potentially, post-publication comments (if somewhat moderated) could improve on this, as other disciplines already do.

How does this solve the peer-review crisis? It does if we treat peer-review as a community tool, too. Reviewers can check for reproducibility and robustness, as well as for ensuring the paper builds upon previous works, without necessarily policing as much as it does now over conformity.

they often fail at supporting others' works by thoroughly documenting methodologies, data sources, code, in a way that is not just "we chucked everything in 72 pages of unformatted appendix". So quality can take many forms: usefulness for the community is one that is even more overshadowed now.

...just like a house needs nice windows, and pillars. But a house also needs lots of humble bricks (ok please bear with my european metaphor, no wood here) that rest on other bricks, and that support what can come next. And while superb papers can offer great intellectual foundations...

So no, more incremental advances do not necessarily imply a lapse in quality, if done well, and with an eye to better contributing to the knowledge of the community - rather than seeing publishing as the way to show how brilliant you are compared to everybody else. Big papers are important...

If you wait X years before publishing your magnum opus, are you preventing others from building on your many methodological advances and your maybe smaller findings, that might be significant to somebody else? I find papers with most methodology buried in the appendix to be quite hard to reproduce.

I have a very different take from many other academics here about publishing. Imo, publishing a paper is more like laying a new brick when building a house than creating a masterpiece painting from scratch. You want something robust, but also something operable on which others can build upon.

Also, yes, we did it! Boys just need to have fun sometimes, and thanks for the reviewers for being game (one of them did complain you do not “brew” CIDER so we had to rename one of the sections…)

Finally, if you disagree with the current set of scenarios modeling centers have simulated, instead of assuming they are shadily conspiring to make SRM look good because the scenarios look too simple (or that they’re just silly!), you can test your own envisioned scenarios!

… and it works quite well at those! The code and underlying training set are open source and available for the community to reproduce our results and improve upon them. A web-based version is also available here ➡️ simulator.reflective.org Lots of potential future improvements already planned.

CIDER is trained on a large but finite set of pre-existing ESM simulations, but it can emulate novel, out-of-sample scenarios at a small fraction of a cost of one ESM simulation. We test it on multiple models, show its capabilities at reproducing out of sample scenarios (like uncoordinated ones)…

A Climate Intervention Dynamical Emulator (CIDER) for scenario space exploration Abstract. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) is a form of proposed climate intervention to reflect incoming solar radiation, offsetting some of the impacts of greenhouse gas warming. Due to the cha...

gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/...

We’ve been working for a few years now on a regional emulator capable of exploring different SRM strategies, capable of expanding the exploration space beyond the small set that Earth System models can provide. It’s here now! Presenting CIDER ➡️

Not closed, you should be able to sign in suggestion mode, so I then can accept signatures after a brief check ;-) otherwise add as comments and I’ll add

Promises promises

We should have a less subtle Friday check up the two of us and talk about all the new shit we learned to make us bitter for the weekend

Might as well try a cutting-edge, novel technique called “Growing a spine” early on. There is nothing to save except all of it.

Sorry but the moral of the story is that, be you Anthropic, NSF, a Ivy university, a doctor, a cop, doesn’t matter if you do 95% of what these people tell you in the hope you get to save the other 5% of your ethics, or your dignity, or your funding. They’ll steamroll you anyway until full compliance

I am pretty sure I INSISTED on having that phrase there, from the fifth wife on.

Sorry I got my genes spliced and now I can’t read!

Man I can't decide which one is the most cursed phrase here

I mean I’d go with staff before that’s where the funniest people are and where you get the best tea.

Clearly didn’t work on him

Me, a super smart immortal wizard thousands of years old: mmmmh I wonder what that means

That is not remotely how you use standard deviation.

Release the Annatar files

Did u not read his manifesto David

Yeah pretty suspicious with their frequent flies from Middle Earth to Valinor Island, they should publish their flight schedules…