At least, that’s what my professor always says, referring to the wealth of papers published by our lab in the past, as opposed to the present lack of continuity in publications, caused by certain new, rather unproductive people (ahum). So although what he said had nothing to do with my blog, I decided to have a new start here, too – I must say other people urged me to do so as well. Well, a new year, a new blogger engine, a new start, sounds good I suppose…
Actually I’ve had thoughts about reorganizing my blog by splitting it into one related to my work as a would-be marine scientist, and one related to leisure and stuff. But on second thoughts apparently I haven’t always time (or interest) to maintain one blog, let alone two, and in any case it sometimes is a thin line between work and non-work, so let me stick to this one – just don’t expect me to publish every day… On the other hand, two blogs would have been an exciting opportunity to architect open-source, global partnerships as to implement integrated paradigms. In the longer run, I could even productize global applications and incentivize next-generation interactive functionalities. (This
bullshit generator really IS brilliant!)
It’s actually not only a new start for my blog, I also started writing my first international scientific paper, since I’m about to finalize the remote sensing analyses and I was getting a bit tired of the (however righteous) insinuations made by my professor.
Pauly, K. et al. (2007, hopefully) High resolution superspectral satellite imagery: a new low-cost tool to map benthic macroalgal communities? Journal of Phycology xx (x), xxxx-xxxx.
Thinking of a proper journal was actually a tough call: papers focusing on the actual use of satellite sensors to map different kinds of seaweeds can be counted using only one hand (well, that’s exactly why I did it). It is far from top-quality research: people who saw my self-made “GPS-located video transects to ground-truth the image” will acknowledge that, so I can forget every journal with an impact factor above 3. On the other hand, I still want it to have an impact factor higher than 1 and preferably higher than 2… Then considering the scope, there wasn’t much choice left. Just to give you an idea: the impact factor of Nature and Science is above 30, meaning my work is at least 10 times more irrelevant than the general news-catching science. (Moreover, if this gets accepted after all, I WILL productize my open-source, low cost applications!) The writing should take no more than two months, the review process might take up to six or more. Every single word needs to be scrutinized… And to say that I had a complete scientific paper on informatics ready-made in just about 2 seconds…
Next projects: implementing remote sensing in phylogeny (*this is not bullshit*), and a long-term study of the impacts of the fertilizer plant in Oman, provided I’ll get the monitoring contract (there’s a good chance, but in Oman nothing is sure until it is established). A few months ago, I was criticized for my ecological research in general an my remote sensing research in particular because it puts me too far away from what the rest of the group does, and when I proposed the former project I was criticized because phylogenetic research would blur the “red line” troughout my PhD thesis. So about the last remark, for once and for all: “The ecology of macroalgal communities in the Arabian Seas, including the introduction of remote sensing as a new tool in phycological research.” How about that?!
Oh, by the way, can someone remind me to bring my camera to the lab? The sunsets are magnificent lately, and I have a keen interest in photographing sunsets!