I am now using biblatex for all my bibliographic work as it seems to have developed enough to be stable and reliable. The big advantage of biblatex is that it is easy to format the bibliography to conform to specific journal or publisher styles. It is also possible to have structured bibliographies (e.g., divided into sections: books, papers, R packages, etc.) Continue reading →
Everyone who has written a paper with another author will know it can be tricky making sure you don’t end up with two versions that need to be merged. The good news is that the days of sending updated drafts by email backwards and forwards is finally over (having lasted all of 25 years — I can barely imagine writing papers before email). Continue reading →
I received this email today:
Dear Professor Hyndman,
I was wondering if you could maybe give me some advice on how to organize your research process. I am able to search the literature on a certain topic and identify where there is a question to work with. My main difficult is to organize my paper annotations in order to help me to guide my research process, i.e, how to manage the information gathered in those papers to compose and structure a document which can represent the research developed so far.
I have been looking at different tools such scrivener, Qiqqa, papers2, etc but I am not sure if one of these tools would be the right way to go. To be honest I am not even sure a tool would do what I am looking for, not just organize references and annotate pdfs but to get more control of my research process.
I appreciate if I could get your thoughts on this subject.
The nature of research is that other people are probably working on similar ideas to you, and it is possible that someone will beat you to publishing them. Continue reading →
I have argued previously that research papers should be posted online at the same time as they are submitted to a journal. Sometimes people claim that journals don’t allow it, which is nonsense. Almost every journal allows it, and many also allow the published version of a paper to appear on your personal website.
It’s a very useful tool, but whoever thought SHERPA/RoMEO was a good name needs therapy.
After years of saying that I was going to write a book to replace Makridakis, Wheelwright and Hyndman (1998), I’m finally ready to make an announcement!
My new book is Forecasting: principles and practice, co-authored with George Athanasopoulos. It is available online and free-of-charge. We have written about 2⁄3 of the book so far (all of which is already available online), and we plan to finish it by the end of 2012. We hope to make a print version of the book available on Amazon in early 2013.
This textbook is intended to provide a comprehensive introduction to forecasting methods and present enough information about each method for readers to use them sensibly. We don’t attempt to give a thorough discussion of the theoretical details behind each method, although the references at the end of each chapter will fill in many of those details. We use R throughout the book and we intend students to learn how to forecast with R.
The book has it’s own R package: fpp. This contains all the data sets used in the book, and also loads a few other packages that are necessary to complete the examples.
The book is different from other forecasting textbooks in several ways.
- It is free and online, making it accessible to a wide audience.
- It is based around the forecast package for R.
- It is continuously updated. You don’t have to wait until the next edition for errors to be removed or new methods to be discussed. We will update the book frequently.
- There are dozens of real data examples taken from our own consulting practice. We have worked with hundreds of businesses and organizations helping them with forecasting issues, and this experience has contributed directly to many of the examples given here, as well as guiding our general philosophy of forecasting.
- We emphasise graphical methods more than most forecasters. We use graphs to explore the data, analyse the validity of the models fitted and present the forecasting results.
Almost every research paper and thesis in statistics contains at least some tables, yet students are rarely taught how to make good tables. While the principles of good graphics are slowly becoming part of a statistical education (although not an econometrics education!), the principles of good tables are often ignored. Perhaps people think they are obvious, although the results I see in papers and theses suggest otherwise. Continue reading →
I asked my research group recently what they wished they had learned before they started work on a PhD. Here are some of the responses. Continue reading →
With the constant pressure on academics to publish research papers, there is a temptation for research groups to include “coauthors” who have not really made any contribution to the manuscript. This seems more prevalent in some fields (e.g., the health sciences) than others.
Occasionally, I am asked to add an author to a paper that has already been accepted for publication in the International Journal of Forecasting. I am very reluctant to do this as it is hard to imagine how someone could be left off a paper while it goes through several revisions, only to be remembered after the paper is accepted. It looks like a last ditch attempt to get someone a publication rather than a genuine research contribution.
Most universities now have an authorship policy. The authorship policy at Monash University includes the following statements.
Attribution of authorship
… in all cases authorship must be based on making a substantial intellectual contribution to the work described and taking sole or joint responsibility for that contribution or, where appropriate, the work as a whole. Accordingly, authorship must be based upon a substantial contribution and responsibility for at least one, and usually more than one, of the following activities:
- Conception and design of the project;
- Analysis and interpretation of research data;
- Drafting significant parts of the work or critically revising it so as to contribute to the interpretation.
Unacceptable inclusions of authorship
The following activities do not by themselves constitute a claim to authorship without substantial intellectual contribution to the work:
- Being head of department, holding other positions of authority, or personal friendship with the authors;
- Providing a routine technical contribution;
- Providing routine assistance in some aspects of the project;
- Acquisition of funding;
- General supervision of the research team;
- Providing data that has already been published or materials obtained from third parties (including the routine collation and provision of research source material).
Acknowledgement of contributors
All those who have otherwise contributed to the research (see authorship attribution criteria above), such as research assistants, technical writers, and research degree students have the right to be properly acknowledged.
I think all researchers need to be careful to abide by rules such as these, not only because it is the right and ethical thing to do, but also because the notion of research authorship will be greatly devalued if we don’t.