My article on peer review

My article on peer review in the December issue of Physics Today can be viewed here http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_61/iss_12/14_1.shtml. The location of the PDF file is at http://link.aip.org/link/PHTOAD/v61/i12/p14/s1/pdf

I submitted my article last May. Several months had passed, and I did not hear anything from them so I thought maybe they were not interested in running the article. Then another incident prompted me to add more to the original text. I was thinking of ways to get it published. Someone suggested to me that I can publish it on a blog. I thought that was a good idea, so I followed the advice. After I created a blog and posted my article, I got an email from the editor saying that they would run my article with some modifications. They cut out quite a few things that I wanted to be heard. Nevertheless, I am happy that they would publish my article, and I hope it will make a positive change in the peer review process.

The original text of my article submitted to Physics Today is from the first half of the article on my blog (http://taiyin.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-game-rules-for-paper-review.html). You can see the original here and the finish product via the link provided in the first paragraph.

Introducing My Youtube Channel

It’s interesting that nowadays people can publish themselves in various creative ways online: showing their videos on Youtube, publishing articles on blogs, just to name a few.

After being encouraged by people, I have joined the millions that enjoy a Youtube account. I have uploaded the first part of my interview on my Youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/profhuang). The video is named “A day with Professor Huang – Part 1.” The other two parts will be uploaded soon after some editing.

The interview was a student project for the students enrolled in the English Technical Writing course in spring 2008. I chaired the Research and Scholarship Committee and thought this could be a very educational and interesting project for the students. So I talked to the instructor to see if she could incorporate the faculty interview project into the course curriculum as part of the student assignments. She kindly integrated that in her class. The students utilized the equipment in Digital Commons to videotape and edit the interviews with the technical assistance from the instructional services specialist in Digital Commons. Altogether, there were eight faculty members participating in this project. There is a credit page at the end of the interview, so those who were involved in the project get proper credit for their efforts.

My interview was filmed in February. I hadn’t had enough time to shake off the extra pounds I gained from my trip to Taiwan. The cover photo was taken in chilly weather, so I looked a bit funny in that photo. All in all, it was fun to be interviewed and filmed by the students. I had thought I would feel uneasy in front of the camera, but it turned out to be good. I felt rather relaxed and comfortable with it and the interviewers, probably because two of them were my students. So no pressure there!

Here is the second part of the interview by students.

Part 1 was done by Chris Lai, part 2 by Chris Albright, and the last parts by Martin Hekmati.



Here are the third and the last part of the interview.

The Secret To My Time Management

Nowadays it seems everybody has a lot on his plate. It is not just adults that are super busy and forget things. In recent years I have noticed that an increasing number of students have become quite forgetful about deadlines, assignments, or appointments. Are people really really that busy that they tend to forget about things? I too have a lot on my plate, but so far I have been able to finish things ahead of time most of the time. So the core of their problem for failing to beat the deadlines is probably that they need an efficient method to keep a record and keep track of their tasks. I think it is a matter of time management and the matter of know-how.

When I first became a faculty member, life was hectic. I had meetings to go to, papers or meeting abstracts to submit before deadlines, student appointments, and etc. It was very difficult to remember each and every one of the things. The 3M post-it notes were good, but they were scattered everywhere on my desk or computer screen. I didn’t like it. I bought a pocket-size two-year monthly planner, and I found it very useful. I wrote deadlines or appointments in my planner. But that was not enough, because the planner was small that I could not write every single task in it. So in addition to a planner, I started writing down a to-do list on a personalized notepad, one page at a time. Ever since then, I managed to keep track of things.

The size of the notepad is 5.5’’x8.5’’. I write down the things I need to do on the page when I still remember them, and I cross them out when I finish the tasks. Normally I would run out of the space on both sides every two or three weeks. This is simple and efficient, but to my surprise, most of the people do not do that. The planner and the to-do list have helped me keep track of everything and enabled me to finish things ahead of time. It has been working very well for me, and that’s more it gives me a sense of accomplishments when I see the items crossed out on my to-do list. It is a successful time management mechanism for me.

Hunting for Sprites

Here are the two incidents of sprites that I captured last Friday (Sept. 19).

I had never thought I could observe sprites at home in front of a computer! The Danish National space Institute installed two camera observing systems at two locations – one on Pic Du Midi in Pyrenees and one on Monte Corona in Corsica. The camera systems can be operated remotely as long as there is a computer and internet connection, and they are controlled via the Danish National Space Institute. The Institute hosts a site where people can view real time images and maps of thunderstorm locations from a satellite. I signed up to be part of a group of interested scientists who would like to participate in the 2008 EuroSprite Observational campaign.

My first observation period started on Monday September 15 through Sunday September 22. In the first two days of my observations, there were not many lightning activities. On the 3rd day (Wednesday), there was a huge thunderstorm system. I spent a few hours on my laptop, following the lightning activity and pointing the cameras to where positive lightning occurred. On Thursday, I accidentally looked at a page in the EuroSprite manual and noticed that I forgot to key in an important command that would be needed to trigger images. I felt like a goof. It is like sitting behind the wheel stepping on gas and thought I was driving while the engine was not even turned on. Thursday was not good for hunting because the cameras on Pic Du Midi were not cooperating and the cameras on Monte Corona were too far away from the thunderstorm. Friday was the only good day for sprite hunting. It was exhilarating to see the sprites that I captured though I was exhausted after hours in front of my laptop. So during the whole week, I only captured two incidents of sprites with the cameras on Monte Corona.

Though the pictures were not close-up shots (I’m a new user so I still have lots to learn how to get a better shot), I’m pleased to have at least captured something. It was fun and interesting. This could be a great project for my students!

LITEs

Below is an extract from the article “On the Lightning Induced Transient Emissions in the OH Airglow Layer Observed by ISUAL Instrument Onboard FORMOSAT-II Satellite” by Tai-Yin Huang1, C. Y. Chiang2, C. L. Kuo3, A. B. Chen2, H. T. Su2, and R. R. Hsu2. Click here http://www.lv.psu.edu/tuh4/LITEs. for the full article. For article citation, please use http://taiyin.blogspot.com/2008/09/LITEs

1. Department of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University Lehigh Valley, Fogelsville, PA 18051, USA
2. Physics Department, Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
3. Institute of Space Science, National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan

Abstract

Observations by The Imager of Sprites and Upper Atmospheric Lightning (ISUAL) broadband filter onboard the FORMOSAT-II satellite have sometimes shown a transient brightness in or below the OH airglow layer accompanied by lightning activity. The ISUAL team conducted a nine-day campaign in January 2007 with some of the observations devoted exclusively to capturing lightning-induced transient emissions (LITEs) with a narrowband filter for such investigations. The observations of lightning-induced intensity enhancements in the OH airglow layer with a narrowband filter presented here are the first and only narrowband observations currently in existence. Our analysis of the narrow-band observations shows that there is a significant intensity increase (87.5%) in the OH airglow layer when there is lightning activity and a residual intensity increase (25%) in post lightning activity. Three mechanisms are proposed to explain the airglow enhancements.

This image shows an intensity enhancement in the OH airglow induced by lightning captured by a broadband filter (623-750 nm).




This image shows an intensity enhancement in OH airglow induced by lightning captured by a narrowband filter centered at 630 nm.

We propose three mechanisms to explain the lightning-induced transient emissions (LITEs) in the OH airglow.

ISUAL’s broadband filter has also captured LITEs below the OH airglow layer like the one below.

Memorable Encounters

I have attended quite a few meetings over the years. Most of the meetings were uneventful except two memorable encounters that stood out in my mind. Below are the two interesting encounters.

The first one occurred during the time I went for a job interview for a postdoctoral position after I finished my job in Canada and was a visiting scientist at University of Cincinnati. As part of the interview, I gave a presentation about some of the work I did. It was about the mesospheric temperature inversion layer at around 85-90 km altitude. The phenomenon of the observed mesospheric temperature inversion layer is that temperature increased 30 to 40 K in a few hours in that altitude range. We proposed that the formation of the inversion layer observed during the ALOHA-93 campaign was due to the gravity wave-critical layer interaction modulated by the descending tidal motion. The mechanism was considered new, and some people had a hard time accepting what we proposed at that time. People who opposed our mechanism preferred tides over gravity waves.

One of the people in the audience preferred tidal explanations. He was a well respected senior scientist in the field of Aeronomy. When I got into the mechanism, he stopped me and asked questions. So I answered the questions with supporting materials that I had prepared. He was not satisfied and asked more questions. I showed more supporting materials and answered that there were data that could not be explained by tides along. Gravity waves had to play an important role in triggering the formation of the temperature inversion layer. We went back and forth with questions and answers. We were like locking horns with each other in the tug-of-war. He insisted that his views were right, while I did not back down and insisted that mine were right as well. The whole debate lasted for quite some time. Finally, the host came to our rescue. He stood up and asked us to discuss it after the presentation. During the whole time while I was defending my views, I cringed inside. The presentation was part of the job interview. It is common sense that people should put on their best behavior and leave a good impression at a time like this. I could have pretended to agree with him just to be amiable, but I couldn’t. I felt that the tidal explanation could not explain the observations with satisfaction and that the gravity wave explanation could do it better.

I flew back to Cincinnati after the interview. When I went to see my thesis advisor, he asked me how the interview went. I relayed the whole thing to him. He smiled (probably because he knew me well, and knew that I would go into debate with people if I thought my views were right) and said the scientist called him the other day to tell him that I did not listen to him (the scientist). Luckily, the host hired me anyway. Our mechanism was getting acceptance. Years later, the scientist wrote a review paper on temperature inversion layers. He very graciously included my work and discussed it in his paper.

Another memorable encounter is not as professional as the previous one. It occurred about two years ago. I attended a meeting and presented a poster on my recent research in the field of lightning. I was new to that field. I got interested in lightning after I attended a NATO-sponsored workshop on lightning and transient luminous events (sprites, elves, etc) in 2004. I wanted to know if lightning could have any effect on the chemical reactions in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. I utilized my background in Aeronomy and did research in Lightning. I did some simulations of OH nightglow emissions in the event of sprites.

During the poster session, I stood in front of my poster. A junior scientist came to look at my poster and then he asked me a few questions. A senior scientist walked toward our direction and stopped at where we were. He didn’t look friendly. I did not know that person. Like I said, I was new to this field, so I don’t think many people in the field of lightning knew about my research background. The senior scientist looked at the junior scientist and asked him questions. At first I thought the senior was asking the junior a question because his face was toward the junior one. But after I heard the question, I thought to myself “He was asking a question about my work! Why didn’t he ask me? Why did he ask a person who was like him, just a viewer of my poster???” The junior one apparently thought the same. He apologetically looked at me and asked me if I could answer the question. So I explained nicely about my work and answered his question. However, the senior rarely looked at me when I was explaining things to him. During my explanation to him, he just looked at the junior without the courteous look toward my direction, and he appeared to be not approving what I said. After I finished, he said something to show that my answer was not reaching his ears. He then said a few more things to the junior that my work was wrong. He seemed to be quite upset about my work or me. I don’t know. Like I said, I did not even know him, and I don’t think he knew me. I don’t know why he should get upset about me or about my work. Come to think of it, here is an interesting observation: People in the field of Aeronomy generally said nice things to me about this work, while people in Lightning tended to trash it.

Anyway, the whole scenario prolonged for some time. It was actually a very funny situation. The three of us stood there forming an equal lateral triangle. The senior looked and talked only to the junior. The junior looked rather uncomfortable in his position, and shifted his gaze between me and the senior. I was feeling upset inside but tried to maintain civil. I have never encountered people this rude and this unprofessional at professional gatherings. If he has any questions about my work, he should just ask me directly. But no, instead, he treated me as if I was not there. I don’t know why he acted that way, but that kind of behavior was really uncalled for, nor was it justified. No one should take this kind of attitude from anybody even if he is someone like Einstein, and to be honest he is nowhere near Einstein. The only reason that I did not give him a piece of my mind at that time was out of the respect for his seniority in his age. Come to think of it, I really should stop him and tell him that we need to discuss his attitude before we discuss my work. Further, even if my work was wrong, which it is not, he could have discussed it with me with a more civil, professional attitude. To be honest, his action is simply beyond my comprehension. At the next meeting, he walked past by a few times, but he did not stop by my poster. I guess during our previous encounter I was sending out the message that I am not someone who can be easily intimidated or harassed. It is wise of him to stay away from me. The whole thing was really hilarious and absurd. I hope that person can realize that too.

Here is another interesting observation. Most scientists tend to think their views are right. If someone holds a different view from theirs, that person must be in the wrong because they feel and think that they are always right therefore that person must be wrong. It seems that the more senior you are the more adamant you become in believing you cannot be no wrong. I admit, I am one of them. Well, at least, I’ve recognized my flaw and will always remind myself to be critical and yet open-minded. One thing is for sure, I certainly won’t treat people bad simply because we hold different views!

New game rules for paper review?

I think it is time to call for a re-examination of the review procedures commonly used in the scientific community and come up with a new set of game rules. Given that publications play an important role in the making or breaking of a person’s academic career, I think a new set of game rules should be adopted to be fair to everyone. Over the years, I have come across various kinds of reviews, just like everyone else who has stayed in science long enough. There were reasonable reviews. There were horrible reviews. There were personal attacks blatantly embedded in the mediocre reviews. Who knows? Maybe the reviewer just had a bad day. Nevertheless, I think we should all start to be responsible for what we say.

I propose that all reviews and the names of the reviewers should be made public after a paper has been accepted or rejected. Supposedly, reviewers are experts whose critiques the editors can reply on. However, such is not always the case. We see good quality papers, but oftentimes we also see some awful papers in the journals. I often wonder how those papers can be published. The original intention of an anonymous review system was good. Unfortunately, I think it has been abused and misused. I think it is time that reviewers should stop hiding behind the anonymous umbrella and stand behind their words by revealing their identity and their reviews. If the reviews and the identity of the reviewers are made public, I’m sure everyone will be cautious about what they write because their reviews will be “reviewed” by the whole scientific community. That way, we will definitely see the improvement of the reviews, and consequently the improvement of the paper itself. Not only that, we will see less of erroneous reviews passed on authoritatively by the reviewers to the editor. Further, I am pretty sure we won’t see any personal attacks that shouldn’t even be there in the first place. Reviewers will focus more on the science content of the paper and not use the review as an outlet for his/her personal feelings.

Do we have the resources to do that? With online journals making headway, I think it won’t take much to include the paper and the reviews next to it, regardless of whether the paper is accepted or rejected. That way, we can witness how the paper was reviewed, and if the reviewers did their job properly and appropriately. We can also go a step further if the journals allow readers to post their views on the paper or the reviews of the paper. I would also urge that the funding agencies adopt the same game rules so that everything is out in the open to ensure that the review process can be fair.

Below are the summaries of my suggestions to the Editorial Boards of scientific journals. I hope that the Editorial Boards would take them into considerations when the editors and the scientific community are ready to re-examine the current review practice. I am certain that I speak for a substantial group of people who share my views.

1. I hope that in the future reviews and author’s responses can be visible to the journal readers. Instead of these being handled in a black box, I hope that the review process can be transparent by making them visible. I think they are equally important as the paper itself that they really deserved to be viewed as well. With things moving toward publishing electronically, I think it is viable to do so.
2. Revealing reviewers’ identities should be implemented. It should not be optional. If everything is done objectively and professionally, I don’t think reviewers should feel any resistance in standing behind what they state in their reviews by revealing their names. I think this will be a very positive change. This will work even better if Suggestion 1 is adopted as well. Oftentimes, we know who reviewed the paper only because they gave favorable reviews. If it is the science content that the reviewers review, they should not be afraid to stand behind their words whether the review is favorable or not.
3. Reviewers’ views are not always correct. I have come across with a few reviews over the years that exposed the inadequate expertise of the reviewers. The current review practice does not always allow reviewers to learn about author’s feedback on their reviews. As a result, the reviewers continue to hold the inaccurate views and will reject the paper based on the same inaccurate beliefs next time.
4. Lastly, papers that are not in the direction of main stream or are controversial will often not see the light of a day. This I have no solution to suggest, but still would like to bring that to the editors’ attention. This is a much debated topic in Letters of Physics Today. It seems that it occurs in every field of science, and no one has come up with a solution to resolve that. But I think if the aforementioned suggestions were adopted, such things would have been minimized greatly.