//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
Profile
Loading...
Computational cognitive neuroscientist at Adelaide University | Perception, Attention, Learning and Memory Lab (https://palm-lab.github.io) | Open Practices Editor at Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics | ReproducibiliTea | http://williamngiam.github.io
William Ngiam | 严祥全
Loading...
1d
8d
A thought that I have not yet seen to its end: quality of a research paper is more gainfully evaluated when substantial time has passed. That is, when subsequent research has tested or extended upon the ideas, leading to further progress and understanding. Seems daft to quantify that with metrics.
Please improve acknowledgments sections to better credit research contributors! www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.... Our new paper on this topic begins by summarising three pathways to improve crediting of research contributors – 1. Loosen authorship restrictions.