Abstracts on entomology

Community and Forum → Entomological collections → Abstracts on entomology

Pages: 1 ...8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16... 19

Likes: 2

11.04.2012 8:05, Pirx

For example - a couple of "strange" works by A. Sirenko. Watch and draw conclusions.

http://babochki-kryma.narod.ru/files/lib/Sirenko_Crimea.pdf
http://babochki-kryma.narod.ru/files/lib/B...6_Agrochola.pdf

Thanks! Yes, if by analogy with these articles-there are relevant doubts about the quality of the future dissertation. What about the daytime ones? Isn't this a story with an incorrect definition or mixed-up mattresses (I vaguely recall that these "finds" were already discussed on the forum)? It is a pity that I say this "behind my back", Arthur is not here, but there is Roman Bidychak. The issue of sharing responsibility for the quality of shared publishing is not new. Here is just a scoop article-indicative. The head of the graduate student (which in this case Sirenko is) allowed the article to be published in this form? ...

Likes: 6

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

11.04.2012 23:23, Kharkovbut

How was it possible to stretch this out over 4 posts?

There would be a desire...

Here are three more, in chronological order. All - in the Bulletin of the Carpathian University. Let the country know its heroes.

http://www.nbuv.gov.ua/PORTAL/Chem_Biol/vp.../2005_5/5-6.pdf
http://www.nbuv.gov.ua/PORTAL/Chem_Biol/vp...2006_6/6-11.pdf
http://www.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/Chem_Biol/vp...07_7-8/7-68.pdf

Perhaps the main role here was played by a certain Lubomir Shkurley. The very first publication - only his, without co-authorship, and this is just a masterpiece. But if you put all this together , a rather unsightly picture emerges.

And was there really no reaction from our Ukrainian daytime specialists?

And what can be the reaction? Discussed on the sidelines, discussed at the forum... Do you need to write reviews for these works?

IMHO, the main problem is the lack of normal pre-print reviewing. At this stage, it was necessary to find out what the authors want to say with their miracle data.

I have very little experience in publishing on entomology. The article in the "Bulletin of Zoology" was reviewed, asked to rework something. But the article in "Ecosystems" just immediately accepted for publication... Then there was an editorial edit, but there was no review of the essence of the work. This surprised me somewhat, because in mathematics, where I have an order of magnitude more publishing experience, this is unthinkable. Even in our (most modest in terms of level) university bulletin, articles are reviewed (and then everything depends on the reviewer's integrity); I don't publish

in it myself - but I was asked to review it; I had to ask to correct something, and "wrap up"something.

but then there is Roman Bidychak.

Maybe in his case, it was that first pancake... There are more decent examples, for example, here:

http://babochki-kryma.narod.ru/files/lib/B...8_Noctuidae.pdf

There are other publications of the Novel. So it's not all bad.

I apologize for the "multibookoff".

Likes: 3

12.04.2012 14:07, Coelioxys

Yes, everyone probably does! It all depends on specific people, not on specialization.

Several years ago, the chairman of the Expert Council on Biological Sciences of the Higher Attestation Commission of Ukraine was academician V. G. Radchenko. He is a direct colleague of mine and I have often heard from him about how he "made a stir" in this matter. I took a few doctorates, conducted an independent examination (I involved real specialists in specific groups, and not just "Council members"), proving plagiarism and forgery. After that, with the" dubious " doctorates in biology, no one dared to leave for a long time.
I don't know how it is now, but last year in Kiev they didn't talk to him about this topic. Maybe something has changed.

PS
And the modest mathematician Kharkovbut is a fairly well-known person in mathematical circles, with such publications and citations in ISI that many of us never dreamed of.

greetings, Zhek

Likes: 1

05.05.2012 19:11, barko

...description of the differences in the hair on the penis of (such and such) a butterfly is already beyond the limits of science (EMHO) something lying. ...

There are two types of elephants - Indian and African.
Wouldn't you rather look at the penises of any of these species through a microscope? In the "borders" of one species (one or the other), I am sure (a priori), we will find differences in the structure of" micro hairs " (in one individual - straight, in another - crooked, in the third - and in general, curly), so what? "divide the view in three?" Will be (until new "openers" arrive) Three elephant species in Africa and three in "India".

The surface of the member of scoops of similar species differs significantly in some groups. These differences can be used like any other feature by setting the boundaries of variability. It is quite applicable, like the shape of a wing or color.

To finish (continue) our dialogue on the topic "hairs on the butterfly's penis", I give a link to my article in which this topic is touched upon: http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/issue/187/

Likes: 3

24.12.2012 8:44, Лавр Большаков

The fact is that it is fundamentally wrong to put an equal sign between such concepts as "dissertation" and "science". You can do science with great success even without a dissertation, and the latter can be defended based on materials that do not have real scientific novelty, including on the compilation of a significant array of previously available information in everyday life. Therefore, I fully share the opinions, including those of some highly qualified people, such as"a dissertation is primarily not a scientific work, but a CERTIFICATION work." It's like an exam. And in those situations when passing the exam is associated with career and material growth, corruption inevitably appears. It is even greater, the more successful the industry where applicants for titles and positions work. The Higher Attestation Commission is intended only to ensure that this corruption does not really get into the eyes of the uninitiated.
To defeat this sector of corruption, it is necessary to eliminate surcharges for academic degrees and existing bureaucratic restrictions for applicants, and then dissertations will gradually turn into a measure of real scientific achievements.

24.12.2012 11:03, Pirx

The fact is that it is fundamentally wrong to put an equal sign between such concepts as "dissertation" and "science". You can do science with great success even without a dissertation, and the latter can be defended based on materials that do not have real scientific novelty, including on the compilation of a significant array of previously available information in everyday life. Therefore, I fully share the opinions, including those of some highly qualified people, such as"a dissertation is primarily not a scientific work, but a CERTIFICATION work." It's like an exam. And in those situations when passing the exam is associated with career and material growth, corruption inevitably appears. It is even greater, the more successful the industry where applicants for titles and positions work. The Higher Attestation Commission is intended only to ensure that this corruption does not really get into the eyes of the uninitiated.
To defeat this sector of corruption, it is necessary to eliminate surcharges for academic degrees and existing bureaucratic restrictions for applicants, and then dissertations will gradually turn into a measure of real scientific achievements.

I fully agree that this is a certification (some call it "qualification") work. But what exactly is it supposed to show? What objective assessment can be used to assess, for example, the ability to navigate scientific works and current scientific trends?

24.12.2012 17:13, Лавр Большаков

... But what exactly is it supposed to show? What objective assessment can be used to assess, for example, the ability to navigate scientific works and current scientific trends?

It is considered that the dissertation should contain some kind of" discovery " of the applicant. It is also clear if there are some high matters, complex original research that no one has done before. But quite often there are abstracts, for example, on lepidopteran faunistics, where the author collected butterflies no better than many forum users, but was able not only to compile a list of them, but also to compile statistics on how species are distributed by types of habitats, ecological characteristics, etc. At the same time, on average, 90% of information on ecology and especially trofics is borrowed from the literature for regions far from the studied territory. If desired, this accounting can be compiled by anyone.
But in dissertations, instead of giving these generalizations in an extremely simple and generally understandable way, confusing "coefficients" are used that are not clear to anyone, designed to show how to work with the "mathematical apparatus". This" device "is often made by the corresponding "Negroes". Moreover, even the definition of species is often carried out by "Negroes", and high-ranking ones. As a result, the applicant cites a lot of works (b.some of which he did not see in his eyes, but copied from references in other works) and demonstrates to the public that he allegedly read a lot, mastered in. language, related specialties. And with a superficial communication with a specialist, you can immediately see that an oak is an oak. And the degree of scientific value of such dissertations is usually limited only to the faunal list, and everything else is essentially sucked out of the finger and parascientific (if not anti-scientific).
And most importantly, let the average forum member who has collected a good regional or systematic collection try to go online. This is where the fun begins - a whole system of complex bureaucratic obstacles that can only be circumvented with an experienced "guide".
Soon (if everything goes "as always") I will probably be able to demonstrate how one absolutely incompetent graduate of a provincial university not only "overtook" a number of much more talented ones, but also "exploited" a whole team of normal specialists in full. But at the same time - a rare oak.
And if there were no corruption schemes, he would not have collected butterflies.

Likes: 2

24.12.2012 18:29, Pirx

But in dissertations, instead of giving these generalizations in an extremely simple and generally understandable way, confusing "coefficients" are used that are not clear to anyone, designed to show how to work with the "mathematical apparatus". This" device "is often made by the corresponding "Negroes". Moreover, even the definition of species is often carried out by "Negroes", and high-ranking ones. As a result, the applicant cites a lot of works (b.some of which he did not see in his eyes, but copied from references in other works) and demonstrates to the public that he allegedly read a lot, mastered in. language, related specialties.

This is a yes - i.e. it turns out that neither knowledge of statistics nor the abundance of cited works can also be a criterion for the "qualification" of a specialist.

24.12.2012 19:29, Pirx

gospadi... what's not public? what's wrong? closed only defenses on secret topics. Do you have spy butterflies or something? Everything is always open, now ALL defenses should be in online mode. Secret voting by council members only. But this is not the EDRA congress...

I've never seen anyone, not even an outsider, get stopped from speaking critically at a defense.

Yes, it is not easy to assess the level, there is no one criterion, it is not an equation. That's why there are opponents, defense, and voting. In Russia, it is much tougher than in Japan, believe me (after 10 years of working there).

Dmitry, you're so dramatic... But in Ukraine, for example, there is no online mode. Just recent events show that the system is becoming easier and more cynical to circumvent. Of course, the autopsy of these pathologies can be interpreted as a positive moment - the system justifies itself, cleans itself. Anyone who likes it.

24.12.2012 19:40, Лавр Большаков

Of course, all abstracts are formally available, only circulations of about 100 copies. and they are distributed before the protection is VERY LIMITED. It is usually possible to find out about the defense of a gray PhD thesis with a long delay. And doctoral programs seem to have recently become available in electronic form in advance.
Yes, we can write at least dozens of negative reviews on the abstract, but corrupt dissenters have" their " opinions, which in this system are more important than all our opinions combined. And they (and at the level of the Higher Attestation Commission, too) have titled "specialists" on hand, ready to write positive conclusions on any nonsense, if they ask well.
I have experience writing in the WAC appeals, and I know this cuisine. As a result, a well-known coleopterologist appeared in Moscow, who often organizes posting and excuses for bad dissertations in the Higher Attestation Commission. And one (may he rest in peace) lepidopterologist, who was "on the hook" with the authorities and obediently fulfilled such "wishes". How many others don't I know yet?
And the criteria for the level of dissertations are simple. For example, a dissertation on butterflies means that the boss, opponents, etc. must be relevant. And reviews should be taken into account first of all from babochniki. What about us? A dissertation on butterflies is a boss at best on flies (well, if you are a biologist at all, and not a doctor or physicist), the opponents are all the more God knows who. Especially in environmental dissenters. And reviews are organized from a wide variety of friends and dependent people, but not from butterfly lovers.

24.12.2012 19:51, Лавр Большаков

So I'm talking about this - and what are these experts looking at? Well, shouldn't we apply long-established and well-functioning criteria - facts of publication in well-known journals, citation indexes, etc.?

This won't help. Corrupt officials with extraordinary ease and even without waiting in line are published in VAKOV magazines. These journals are singled out in the system because their editorial boards are "manageable". And sometimes they miss outright small-scale farming, or even obvious "non-cheapness", which has already been repeatedly published in the provinces. And the reviewers in these journals-from the same clip!
But! You can evaluate a dissertation or at least a set of works of the author not by custom reviews of non-specialists on the topic,but by purposefully and persistently interviewing the maximum number of specialists on the topic. Yes, it will be longer, but much more objective. But will the system do it?

24.12.2012 20:02, Pirx

This won't help. Corrupt officials with extraordinary ease and even without waiting in line are published in VAKOV magazines. These journals are singled out in the system because their editorial boards are "manageable". And sometimes they miss outright small-scale farming, or even obvious "non-cheapness", which has already been repeatedly published in the provinces. And the reviewers in these journals-from the same clip!
But! You can evaluate a dissertation or at least a set of works of the author not by custom reviews of non-specialists on the topic,but by purposefully and persistently interviewing the maximum number of specialists on the topic. Yes, it will be longer, but much more objective. But will the system do it?

Well, famous and Vak are not synonyms. Citation indexes were invented for the same purpose. However, you can come up with your own internal citation index

You offer essentially the same feedback system, but only from specialists. But such a system also needs to be built, and I don't really understand how it will work. Will it be a point

game ? What if everyone is "for" and one " key "academic is "against"?

24.12.2012 22:09, Лавр Большаков

Again, the real" citation index " of the work and the journal's popularity cannot be physically known by non-specialists sitting on academic councils. And the current bureaucratic "indexes" are from the evil one. After all, bureaucrats do not know and do not want to know the literature that is published in the region, country, or world, and operate only in a very narrow circle of "well-known" publications. A person can publish a good work in a provincial or little-known collection, or even in the form of a monograph, but it will not be known to those who display this "index". Only in the environment of industry specialists can there be an idea of the real demand and quality of work.
As for the "key academicians", if they were once specialists, they are often" preserved "in their knowledge during their stay at Olympus. Their activities - administrative, political, whatever, but not necessarily in the same field in which he worked in his youth. Therefore, the opinion of the academician, if it is necessary to take into account, is based on the principle of 1 person - 1 vote, in no other way. And also to see if the academician is a specialist in the group, or only a "great compiler" and inventor of terms.

Pages: 1 ...8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16... 19