Your publisher is a moron. The Lexicon book failed because it stole too many quotes from her books and failed to provide enough commentary to justify the practice. Your book sounds rather similar to this one, which is quite acceptable (and highly rated). Find yourself another publisher.
Apparently there's some controversy as to whether the gap is a result of normal geological activity or a direct result of the impact. See the last paragraph of this section.
The ESRB is a start, but unless game retailers really start enforcing it, then it's not really having much of an impact. It's probably easier for the movie industry to self-regulate, because there's relatively few theaters out there compared to stores that stock games, but I'm still surprised that the game industry and the retailers don't have their act together a little better on all of this. Maybe the threat of these laws will move that process along.
Maybe you want to see the FTC's report on the issue. Here's the failure rates:
R-rated movie ticket: 39%
M-rated video game: 41%
R-rated movie on video: 71%
Unrated movie on video: 71%
CDs with "Explicit Content" labels: 76%
No, the article in the WSJ is tainted by sloppy analysis. The paper itself (a metareview) shows that the authors recognized that their own biases could be a problem. From the abstract: "Two evaluators independently extracted data with a third evaluator arbitrating their discrepancies."
Oh, if only I had a modpoint... Medical research != all scientific research; it's much more prone to errors due to how it's performed and analyzed. I hope your point doesn't get buried amongst all the charges of corruption.
Ah, for-profit publishers. I'm all for making a profit when it comes to fiction and most non-fiction, but profiting off of research that receives public funding is ridiculous. I would like a model where the government directly funds the scientific societies, but I don't see any way that's going to change, at least in the US. I can see how it might gain work with a country that isn't so afraid of socialism, but that still wouldn't affect the biggest publishers, not to mention the logistics of a society with international members.
Free, online-only publications can be fine, but professional editing can be necessary for authors who don't speak English as a first language. It can also be necessary for authors who do speak English as a first language.
We just make it fit on dead trees? Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems is online-only. Every other journal that AGU publishes is also offered online. We "often" screw up formatting of print copies? Show me some scanned pages with botched formatting and compare that to the number of total pages we've published.
Go away, troll. Commercial publishers will be around for a long time.
Hi, I work at a scientific publisher. If you consider professional editing to be of "no value," you're obviously unfamiliar with what many papers look like when they're accepted.
"Far more useful is a very good relative pitch - being able to instantly recognise all the intervals and sing/play harmonies without thinking about it will make a far better musician than someone who happens to be able to tune their instrument to concert pitch without a reference note."
That may be true, but it's still very annoying to subconsciously transpose a piece and realize it only when you find that you're missing a string.
The paper is submitted.
The journal editor sends it to an associate editor.
The associate editor selects the peer reviewers.
The scientists recommend changes before accepting the paper. These comments go back to the author through the editor. Not requiring changes is extremely rare.
The author makes changes and resubmits the paper. The editor accepts the paper and the author is notified.
The paper now moves in-house.
The color option is set and payment is calculated. This shows our publication fees. If the author is unable to pay, the fee may be waived.
The author uploads images to the Image Center.
The IC fixes the images so they adhere to the journal's requirements (format and resolution) and does a quality check.
The author oks the edited images.
Publication paperwork is completed. The paper can now go to Editorial Services.
An incoming and metadata check is completed. Any missing files are supplied.
The paper goes to a copy editor. Grammatical errors are fixed and the paper is brought into line with the journal's style. Author is e-mailed for any missing information and any further figure revisions are made.
The paper is formatted by a vendor. The paper now exists in three formats: XML, HTML, and a low-quality PDF.
The author checks the HTML and PDF for errors. If there are major changes, the author may request an additional round of editing for a fee.
An assistant copy editor checks all versions for errors.
The publishing date and information is set. The CE marks all editorial changes and publishing information.
The vendor corrects all versions.
A proofreader checks that all changes are made and that every file is available online.
All further changes are made by an in-house web group.
The electronic copy goes live.
A high-quality PDF is sent to the printer.
Here is AGU's policy on copyright. The options are AGU, Public Domain, or Crown. The issue of copyright is not to be confused with Open Access.
If you look at the prices for open access and compare them to the normal fees, you'll see that it will roughly cost an additional 250% to publish under OA (excluding fees for color figures). A JGR-Space Physics paper that is 30 Publishing Units will cost $900 to print normally and $3150 to release under OA. The extra fee of $2250 is to cover what AGU would be earning through normal sales of this article; it's not "profit." Since the option was offered (April), we have had 1 paper submitted under OA (it's just been accepted, otherwise I would give you the ID).
Again, AGU is a nonprofit. It would be great if the government would throw enough money at us so we could make everything open access. It's not going to happen any time soon.
I believe it says on the back that it's suitable for students, but I could be confusing it with the book on Kamchatka volcanoes (I had to proof both covers this week). You should have no problem as long as you have Wikipedia to consult.
If you're interested, the American Geophysical Union will be publishing a book later this year on the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Geophysical Monograph series). It's a collection of several dozen papers, many of which attempt to model the various cycles and their effects. Hopefully some of the models will be used to reduce the background noise.
Slashdot Mirror
Your publisher is a moron. The Lexicon book failed because it stole too many quotes from her books and failed to provide enough commentary to justify the practice. Your book sounds rather similar to this one, which is quite acceptable (and highly rated). Find yourself another publisher.
You see, you're assuming that you're using the only definition right definition.
I know you're making a joke, but mammals can actually be aged by counting the rings in their teeth.
Except, of course, that journals are publishing PDFs online...
Apparently there's some controversy as to whether the gap is a result of normal geological activity or a direct result of the impact. See the last paragraph of this section.
That's already been proposed. See the entry on the Shiva crater.
Maybe you want to see the FTC's report on the issue. Here's the failure rates:
R-rated movie ticket: 39%
M-rated video game: 41%
R-rated movie on video: 71%
Unrated movie on video: 71%
CDs with "Explicit Content" labels: 76%
Will do, thanks. Is there a thread for swapping Wii codes for when Brawl comes out?
You should swap codes with one of my friends. I'm sure he'd be happy to have someone to play against online who's around his level.
You might want to check your math.
Assume one hit = 1 person
Minors = age 17 and under
Percentage of Google visitors who are minors = minors/total visitors = 30.3/(30.3 + 11.2 + 19.9 + 42.5 + 47) = 30.3/150.9 = 0.200 = 20%
No, the article in the WSJ is tainted by sloppy analysis. The paper itself (a metareview) shows that the authors recognized that their own biases could be a problem. From the abstract: "Two evaluators independently extracted data with a third evaluator arbitrating their discrepancies."
Oh, if only I had a modpoint...
Medical research != all scientific research; it's much more prone to errors due to how it's performed and analyzed. I hope your point doesn't get buried amongst all the charges of corruption.
Ah, for-profit publishers. I'm all for making a profit when it comes to fiction and most non-fiction, but profiting off of research that receives public funding is ridiculous. I would like a model where the government directly funds the scientific societies, but I don't see any way that's going to change, at least in the US. I can see how it might gain work with a country that isn't so afraid of socialism, but that still wouldn't affect the biggest publishers, not to mention the logistics of a society with international members.
Your thoughts?
Free, online-only publications can be fine, but professional editing can be necessary for authors who don't speak English as a first language. It can also be necessary for authors who do speak English as a first language.
We just make it fit on dead trees? Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems is online-only. Every other journal that AGU publishes is also offered online. We "often" screw up formatting of print copies? Show me some scanned pages with botched formatting and compare that to the number of total pages we've published.
Go away, troll. Commercial publishers will be around for a long time.
"What really begs the question is, where the hell does that money go, if not to the author of the article?"
That money goes the copy editors, the people who actually understand the proper usage of the phrase "to beg the question." </snark>
Hi, I work at a scientific publisher. If you consider professional editing to be of "no value," you're obviously unfamiliar with what many papers look like when they're accepted.
"Far more useful is a very good relative pitch - being able to instantly recognise all the intervals and sing/play harmonies without thinking about it will make a far better musician than someone who happens to be able to tune their instrument to concert pitch without a reference note."
That may be true, but it's still very annoying to subconsciously transpose a piece and realize it only when you find that you're missing a string.
I found a reference, and yeah it was goatse. I wonder how long it's going to take before the backpedal this time.
Someone on LJ did that with a meme he created and spread all over the place. After X number of days he changed the image to something NWS.
Hi, I work at a nonprofit scientific publisher. Here's what actually happens:
The paper is submitted.
The journal editor sends it to an associate editor.
The associate editor selects the peer reviewers.
The scientists recommend changes before accepting the paper. These comments go back to the author through the editor. Not requiring changes is extremely rare.
The author makes changes and resubmits the paper. The editor accepts the paper and the author is notified.
The paper now moves in-house.
The color option is set and payment is calculated. This shows our publication fees. If the author is unable to pay, the fee may be waived.
The author uploads images to the Image Center.
The IC fixes the images so they adhere to the journal's requirements (format and resolution) and does a quality check.
The author oks the edited images.
Publication paperwork is completed. The paper can now go to Editorial Services.
An incoming and metadata check is completed. Any missing files are supplied.
The paper goes to a copy editor. Grammatical errors are fixed and the paper is brought into line with the journal's style. Author is e-mailed for any missing information and any further figure revisions are made.
The paper is formatted by a vendor. The paper now exists in three formats: XML, HTML, and a low-quality PDF.
The author checks the HTML and PDF for errors. If there are major changes, the author may request an additional round of editing for a fee.
An assistant copy editor checks all versions for errors.
The publishing date and information is set. The CE marks all editorial changes and publishing information.
The vendor corrects all versions.
A proofreader checks that all changes are made and that every file is available online.
All further changes are made by an in-house web group.
The electronic copy goes live.
A high-quality PDF is sent to the printer.
Here is AGU's policy on copyright. The options are AGU, Public Domain, or Crown. The issue of copyright is not to be confused with Open Access.
If you look at the prices for open access and compare them to the normal fees, you'll see that it will roughly cost an additional 250% to publish under OA (excluding fees for color figures). A JGR-Space Physics paper that is 30 Publishing Units will cost $900 to print normally and $3150 to release under OA. The extra fee of $2250 is to cover what AGU would be earning through normal sales of this article; it's not "profit." Since the option was offered (April), we have had 1 paper submitted under OA (it's just been accepted, otherwise I would give you the ID).
Again, AGU is a nonprofit. It would be great if the government would throw enough money at us so we could make everything open access. It's not going to happen any time soon.
The book is now available for order here: https://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/agubookstore?book=OSGM 1734382
I definitely recommend reading the introduction.
I believe it says on the back that it's suitable for students, but I could be confusing it with the book on Kamchatka volcanoes (I had to proof both covers this week). You should have no problem as long as you have Wikipedia to consult.
If you're interested, the American Geophysical Union will be publishing a book later this year on the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Geophysical Monograph series). It's a collection of several dozen papers, many of which attempt to model the various cycles and their effects. Hopefully some of the models will be used to reduce the background noise.
*insert obligatory Hitchhiker's Guide joke*
That's certainly a valid technique. Movie directors also play that game with the MPAA.