- Home
- Angry by Choice
- Catalogue of Organisms
- Chinleana
- Doc Madhattan
- Games with Words
- Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
- History of Geology
- Moss Plants and More
- Pleiotropy
- Plektix
- RRResearch
- Skeptic Wonder
- The Culture of Chemistry
- The Curious Wavefunction
- The Phytophactor
- The View from a Microbiologist
- Variety of Life
Field of Science
-
-
-
-
Hivestorm1 year ago in Pleiotropy
-
The Site is Dead, Long Live the Site1 year ago in Catalogue of Organisms
-
The Site is Dead, Long Live the Site1 year ago in Variety of Life
-
-
Does mathematics carry human biases?3 years ago in PLEKTIX
-
-
-
Daily routine3 years ago in Angry by Choice
-
-
A New Placodont from the Late Triassic of China4 years ago in Chinleana
-
Posted: July 22, 2018 at 03:03PM5 years ago in Field Notes
-
Bryophyte Herbarium Survey6 years ago in Moss Plants and More
-
Harnessing innate immunity to cure HIV7 years ago in Rule of 6ix
-
WE MOVED!7 years ago in Games with Words
-
-
-
-
post doc job opportunity on ribosome biochemistry!8 years ago in Protein Evolution and Other Musings
-
Growing the kidney: re-blogged from Science Bitez8 years ago in The View from a Microbiologist
-
Blogging Microbes- Communicating Microbiology to Netizens9 years ago in Memoirs of a Defective Brain
-
-
-
The Lure of the Obscure? Guest Post by Frank Stahl11 years ago in Sex, Genes & Evolution
-
-
Lab Rat Moving House12 years ago in Life of a Lab Rat
-
Goodbye FoS, thanks for all the laughs12 years ago in Disease Prone
-
-
Slideshow of NASA's Stardust-NExT Mission Comet Tempel 1 Flyby12 years ago in The Large Picture Blog
-
in The Biology Files
A plant pundit comments on plants, the foibles and fun of academic life, and other things of interest.
Reviewing your own literature
While writing a review paper, it was necessary to read several of my own research papers of circa 20 years ago to refresh the old memory. This is an interesting exercise. In doing so you might cringe at your own naivite and premature conclusions. You might find that subsequent studies in the field have trashed your best ideas. Or you might find that your studies have stood the test of time fairly well, that they still are sound biology and a good reflection on your work. In this respect the Phactor is feeling OK; these were good field work on a little studied group. What is more interesting is to see how your papers are getting cited by other authors. Chased down three publications cited as more or less supporting some of the conclusions reached in my own papers. All three were actually citing my papers, so these were sort of secondary citations, by a third author. Then there's always the "say what?" citation, where you wonder what they were reading. Can't find anything in those papers that might have been so misconstrured either. So that's on them and their scholarship, not on me. And yes, it does help to refresh the memory. Two publications had become confused in my memory, and it helped sort them out before making a mistake. But now the eyes are a bit glazed and focus wanders. Need another dose of caffeine perhaps, or at least a walk around to get out of this mid afternoon daze.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment