Jeg er enig med dig, hvis det er en god model, men som der også står i artiklen:

Det er dét spørgsmål, som kritikken af FST kredser om:

Kan man hjælpe et opgivende menneske ved at få en mus til at tro på sin kamp for at slippe væk?

En dårlig model kan sagtens være værre end ingen model. Jeg kan ikke selv vurdere det, men jeg synes det er dejligt, at dyremodeller bliver revurderet. Det er trods alt kun modeller og der er et lidende væsen på den anden side

Der er vist delte meninger. Kritikere mener, at forsøgsmetoden er for usikker, mens dem, der stadig gerne vil benytte den mener den er god. Alle er dog enige i, at der ikke rigtig er nogle gode alternativer pt

Fra artiklen:

Målet med ‘Forced Swim Test (FST)’ er at fremme »adfærdsmæssig opgivenhed« hos enten mus eller rotter. Sådan lyder det ofte i de studier, der anvender forsøget.

Alt psykiatrisk medicin har på et tidspunkt været igennem den her slags test, og FST er et af de ældste og mest anvendte dyremodeller inden for forskning i depression.

That’s okay. If you view the journals as glorified blogs, I agree that they’re unnecessary. They aren’t and do more than that even though they’re also doing a lot of bad stuff with sky high profit margins. If you’re not open for changing your views, I don’t see the point of discussing any more. Appreciate the back and forth, tho!

If I understand you correctly: Yes, the article can have a typesetting like whatever you get out-of-the-box from Latex and that article can then be published anywhere. What is typically not allowed is to openly publish the article that have been typeset by the journal where you’ve sent in your article. This is probably what you mean by “preamble/theme”

No, that’s not what I said. You’re right that journals, to some extent, also lends credibility to the publication, but it’s not the source of credibility. What I said was that an article published in Nature will have many more views than an article published on a random WordPress blog.

Again, saying that researchers “agree to have it that way” ignores the structural difficulty of changing the system by the individual. The ones who benefit the most from changing the system are also the ones most dependent on external funding - that is, young researchers. Publishing in low-impact journals (ones that has a small outreach such as most open-access journals) makes it much harder to apply for funding

The typeset article is what you’d see if you download the .pdf from, e.g., Nature. .

It’s the manuscript with all the stuff that distinguishes an article from one journal to another (where is the abstract, what font type, is there a divider between some sections, etc.). Articles that have not been typeset yet can be seen from Arxiv, for example this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04391

There are several benefits, but compared to WordPress, I guess the biggest one is outreach: no one will actually see an article if it’s published by a young researcher that hasn’t made a name for themselves yet. It will also not be catalogued and will therefore be more difficult to find when searching for articles.

Also, calling researchers “whipped” is a bit dismissive to the huge inertia there is in the realm of scientific publication. The scientific journal of Nature was founded in 1869, but general open-access publishing has only really taken off in the last decade or so.

You will transfer the economic copyright to most journals upon publication of the typeset manuscript meaning that you’re not allowed to publish that particular PDF anywhere. However, a lot of journals are okay with you publishing the pre-peer reviewed article or even sometimes the peer-reviewed, but NOT typeset article (sometimes called post-print article). Scientific publishing is weird :-)

Moules-frites er ret lækkert og forholdsvis nemt at tilberede. Man skal bare være klar på lidt skrubbe-arbejde ved tilberedning og lidt pille-arbejde ved spisning. Fordelen er, at blåmuslinger næsten altid er ret billige. Her er en opskrift: https://www.tasteatlas.com/moules-frites/recipe

Nej, det forstår jeg heller ikke. Er det fordi de mener, at de så kan dække mindre af byen per dag, fordi de i snit kører langsommere? Omvendt, så må det blive sikrere at køre udrykning, når alle andre kører langsommere

Der fik du mig lige ned i lidt af et kaninhul!

De kan (eftersigende) skelnes ved at kigge på fodrodsknuden. Hos butsnudet er fodrodsknuden kortere end indertåens inderste led 😄 jeg har ingen anelse selv og måske ved du det allerede. Synes frøer er ret sjove dyr

Se her for fodrodsknude

Fedt, mange tak!

Hvor har du skaffet chilierne? Synes tit der er et lidt kedeligt udvalg i det lokale supermarked

Thanks, and yes, you’re correct

The actual scientific article is open-access: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07856-5

Ahh that’s wack. The article it’s based on is open-access: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07856-5

Plenty. If you scroll down, there’s tens of research articles linked. You just have to click on the circles for most of the articles :-)

Here’s an excerpt from the bottom of the article’:

The most conclusive long-term study on sleep training to date is a 2012 randomized controlled trial on 326 infants, which found no difference on any measure—negative or positive—between children who were sleep trained and those who weren’t after a 5 year follow up. The study includes measurements of sleep patterns, behavior, cortisol levels, and, importantly, attachment.

Ja, jeg synes også den er svær for næsten alle løsninger virker til at ville ramme skævt. Skribenten har tidligere snakket om en løsning, hvor det er staten, der sidder signeringscertifikater, så trafikken er krypteret, men hvor de, med en dommerkendelse, kan få adgang til det hele. Men no way, at de kriminelle så kommer til at bruge de “officielle” løsninger og så er vi lige vidt

Den er svær, men jeg kan mærke, at jeg selv er begyndt at bløde lidt op

Yes, beklager!