6,113 research outputs found

    Network design for urban light transport

    Get PDF

    Crystallization of the glassy phase of grain boundaries in silicon nitride

    Get PDF
    Three types of hot-pressed silicon nitride specimens (containing 5wt% Y2O3 and 2wt% Al2O3 additives) which were subjected to different temperature heat treatments were studied by X-ray diffraction, X-ray microanalysis and high resolution electron microscopy. The results indicated that there were phase changes in the grain boundaries after heat treatment and the glassy phase at the grain boundaries was crystallized by heat treatment

    Local instantaneous measurements of heat transfer as a solid

    Get PDF

    Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average

    Full text link
    One of the virtues of peer review is that it provides a self-regulating selection mechanism for scientific work, papers and projects. Peer review as a selection mechanism is hard to evaluate in terms of its efficiency. Serious efforts to understand its strengths and weaknesses have not yet lead to clear answers. In theory peer review works if the involved parties (editors and referees) conform to a set of requirements, such as love for high quality science, objectiveness, and absence of biases, nepotism, friend and clique networks, selfishness, etc. If these requirements are violated, what is the effect on the selection of high quality work? We study this question with a simple agent based model. In particular we are interested in the effects of rational referees, who might not have any incentive to see high quality work other than their own published or promoted. We find that a small fraction of incorrect (selfish or rational) referees can drastically reduce the quality of the published (accepted) scientific standard. We quantify the fraction for which peer review will no longer select better than pure chance. Decline of quality of accepted scientific work is shown as a function of the fraction of rational and unqualified referees. We show how a simple quality-increasing policy of e.g. a journal can lead to a loss in overall scientific quality, and how mutual support-networks of authors and referees deteriorate the system.Comment: 5 pages 4 figure

    ENGL 1157

    Get PDF
    corecore