Interlude: Unconventional, Time Management, and Misunderstanding AI
Happy National DNA Day! Today, I'm recalling one of the most seminal scientific papers ever published—Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid by Watson and Crick.
This paper had a profound impact on the scientific community that lives on more than 70 years later. Yet, the style of writing deviates from conventions that many people believe are expected today.
The text is brief and direct. The authors use first person, simple words, and short sentences and paragraphs. And readers do not need to read a sentence more than once to understand the meaning.
I'll admit that the writing isn't perfect (no writing is). I would certainly suggest a few edits (especially to remove expletive pronouns). But this paper is an incredible example that you don't have to follow writing conventions to make a valuable contribution to science. Especially when those writing conventions are not backed by evidence and plague poor scientific writing.
So when you think you need to follow the conventional path to fit in, maybe you just need to follow the unconventional path to stand out.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
👓 Reading
Has AI Replaced Editors?
"Fundamentally, the question of whether AI is a good substitute for a human editor is a misunderstanding of what AI is. AI is a tool. It can be useful in helping you spot errors or improve your writing, but it can also make poor or redundant suggestions that will waste your time and confuse your readers. In this way, though AI is cheap and fast, it cannot replace the knowledge and expertise of a professional editor."
20,000 scientists publish at unrealistic rates, study says
"The analysis...found that around 10% of those on the list—around 20,000 scientists—published an improbable number of papers. Some produced hundreds of studies per year with hundreds to thousands of new coauthors annually. . .What surprised Pilia and Mora is the sheer number of authors who seem to be using unethical practices, such as coauthorship listing without adequate input to the research, to boost their publication numbers. Around 1,000 of them are early-career researchers who have worked in academia for 10 years or less."
Productivity
In this article, Sam Altman shares many of his productivity tips. The tip that I'm mulling over: "In general, I think it’s good to overcommit a little bit. I find that I generally get done what I take on, and if I have a little bit too much to do it makes me more efficient at everything, which is a way to train to avoid distractions (a great habit to build!). However, overcommitting a lot is disastrous."
🖥️ Watching
How to manage your time more effectively (according to machines)
"Human beings and computers alike share the challenge of how to get as much done as possible in a limited time. Over the last fifty or so years, computer scientists have learned a lot of good strategies for managing time effectively — and they have a lot of experience with what can go wrong. Brian Christian shares how we can use some of these insights to help make the most of our own lives."
💬 Quote
"There is no form of prose more difficult to understand and more tedious to read than the average scientific paper." – Francis Crick
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
