Comments on: How Much NSF Grant Money Can One Bad Apple Control? http://greengabbro.net/2007/04/03/how-much-nsf-grant-money-can-one-bad-apple-control/ rock out to the apparatus Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:48:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Lab Lemming http://greengabbro.net/2007/04/03/how-much-nsf-grant-money-can-one-bad-apple-control/#comment-10478 Lab Lemming Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:44:54 +0000 http://greengabbro.net/2007/04/03/how-much-nsf-grant-money-can-one-bad-apple-control/#comment-10478 More reviewer commentary here: <a href="http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-to-do-about-reviews.html" rel="nofollow">http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-to-do-about-reviews.html</a> More reviewer commentary here:
http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-to-do-about-reviews.html

]]> By: Lab Lemming http://greengabbro.net/2007/04/03/how-much-nsf-grant-money-can-one-bad-apple-control/#comment-10441 Lab Lemming Wed, 04 Apr 2007 07:37:13 +0000 http://greengabbro.net/2007/04/03/how-much-nsf-grant-money-can-one-bad-apple-control/#comment-10441 It's actually a stock-standard psychological trick. Whenever we were getting our pre-detention scoldings at school, the principal would always tell us that we were "way too intelligent to be doing X". It’s actually a stock-standard psychological trick. Whenever we were getting our pre-detention scoldings at school, the principal would always tell us that we were “way too intelligent to be doing X”.

]]> By: gengar http://greengabbro.net/2007/04/03/how-much-nsf-grant-money-can-one-bad-apple-control/#comment-10440 gengar Wed, 04 Apr 2007 07:20:34 +0000 http://greengabbro.net/2007/04/03/how-much-nsf-grant-money-can-one-bad-apple-control/#comment-10440 The congnitive dissonance required to completely trash someone's research proposals and then call them 'truly intelligent' should be sufficient to disqualify this reviewer's comments from consideration - they might as well write "NOT EVEN REMOTELY IMPARTIAL" in big red pen at the top of their review. The congnitive dissonance required to completely trash someone’s research proposals and then call them ‘truly intelligent’ should be sufficient to disqualify this reviewer’s comments from consideration - they might as well write “NOT EVEN REMOTELY IMPARTIAL” in big red pen at the top of their review.

]]> By: yami http://greengabbro.net/2007/04/03/how-much-nsf-grant-money-can-one-bad-apple-control/#comment-10434 yami Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:49:22 +0000 http://greengabbro.net/2007/04/03/how-much-nsf-grant-money-can-one-bad-apple-control/#comment-10434 I think the underlying worry is more, "is this negative evaluation the result of something I can control, or not?" - perhaps not the most productive response to reviewers' caprice, but a very human one. I think the underlying worry is more, “is this negative evaluation the result of something I can control, or not?” - perhaps not the most productive response to reviewers’ caprice, but a very human one.

]]> By: Lab Lemming http://greengabbro.net/2007/04/03/how-much-nsf-grant-money-can-one-bad-apple-control/#comment-10430 Lab Lemming Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:42:49 +0000 http://greengabbro.net/2007/04/03/how-much-nsf-grant-money-can-one-bad-apple-control/#comment-10430 Alternatively, if erviews had to be signed, then people couldn't use anonymity as a shield for unscientific grant assassinations. In any case, the NSF really needs an outlier rejection algorythm, where any review more than a few sigma from the other reviews simply gets tossed out as "electro-sociological noise". Then entire topic probably needs a post of its own, though. As for the sexual comments, damning with faint praise is common methodology of the corrupt gatekeeper class. What they choose to be "complimentary" about is probably trivial. Worrying about whether it's a woman thing is like wondering whether the bunny and the hat need to be different colors; the more you think about it, the more it distracts from the real issue. Alternatively, if erviews had to be signed, then people couldn’t use anonymity as a shield for unscientific grant assassinations.

In any case, the NSF really needs an outlier rejection algorythm, where any review more than a few sigma from the other reviews simply gets tossed out as “electro-sociological noise”.

Then entire topic probably needs a post of its own, though.

As for the sexual comments, damning with faint praise is common methodology of the corrupt gatekeeper class. What they choose to be “complimentary” about is probably trivial. Worrying about whether it’s a woman thing is like wondering whether the bunny and the hat need to be different colors; the more you think about it, the more it distracts from the real issue.

]]>