Ten Simple Rules for Making Good Oral Presentations. Citation: Bourne PE (2007) Ten Simple Rules for Making Good Oral Presentations. PLoS Comput Biol 3(4): e77. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030077 Published: April 27, 2007 Copyright: © 2007 Philip E. Bourne. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: The author received no specific funding for this article. Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist. Continuing our “Ten Simple Rules” series [1–5], we consider here what it takes to make a good oral presentation. Rule 1: Talk to the Audience We do not mean face the audience, although gaining eye contact with as many people as possible when you present is important since it adds a level of intimacy and comfort to the presentation.
Rule 2: Less is More Rule 3: Only Talk When You Have Something to Say Rule 5: Be Logical. 10 simple rules : cette rubrique contient 25 articles ! Psychiatry Journal Watch. Psychiatry Recommendations - F1000. Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales.
C’est la faute aux « fact-checkeurs », ces journalistes importuns. Ouf ! On vient enfin de trouver le coupable. Qui est responsable de la dégradation du débat politique ? Du médiocre niveau de la campagne, passée à côté des grands enjeux économiques ? Voire de la « montée des extrêmes » ? Stéphane Soumier, journaliste à BFM Business, a trouvé la réponse : les « fact-checkeurs ». La poignée de journalistes qui, dans la presse écrite et sur les sites, vérifient les chiffres assénés par les politiques dans les débats. « Cette campagne a été celle d’une hystérie des contrôles », se désole notre confrère. « Des batteries de contrôleurs sur le Net pour sanctionner en temps réel les erreurs factuelles des puissants ».
Quelle importance, que les chiffres soient exacts ou approximatifs ? « L’économie n’est jamais statique, elle est dynamique, et la dynamique ne se “fact-check” pas, elle dépend de la volonté des hommes. » L’argumentaire mérite d’être examiné (je n’ose pas dire « fact-checké »). On n’y est pas. [citation needed]» Blog Archive » large-scale data exploration, MIC-style. UPDATE 2/8/2012: Simon & Tibshirani posted a critical commentary on this paper here. See additional thoughts here. Real-world data are messy. Relationships between two variables can take on an infinite number of forms, and while one doesn’t see, say, umbrella-shaped data very often, strange things can happen.
When scientists talk about correlations or associations between variables, they’re usually referring to one very specific form of relationship–namely, a linear one. The assumption is that most associations between pairs of variables are reasonably well captured by positing that one variable increases in proportion to the other, with some added noise. In reality, of course, many associations aren’t linear, or even approximately so. Detecting a non-linear association is potentially just as easy as detecting a linear relationship if we know the form of that association up front. To give you an intuitive sense of how this works, consider this Figure from the supplemental material:
CARTES MENTALES.
PubCrawler Web Service. Free online reference management for clinicians and scientists. Science Exchange // Home: Index. Khan Academy. Bitly | shorten, share and track your links. Paper.li - Vous êtes le red-en-chef. Twitter / Accueil. PubMed. Deja vu: Medline duplicate publication database. Deja Vu: a Database of Highly Similar Citations* Click this link to begin browsing entries , or click the "Browse" button above and follow the instructions. To access the entries discovered by the SIP method, click SIP entries We value your feedback. Please take one minute to take a brief survey ( Click here). Join the discussion of scientific publication ethics on COPE. Deja vu is a database of extremely similar Medline citations.
In the scientific research community plagiarism and multiple publications of the same data are considered unacceptable practices and can result in tremendous misunderstanding and waste of time and energy. The application of text similarity searching can robustly detect highly similar text records, offering a new tool for ensuring integrity in scientific publications. *There are many definitions of the terms "duplicate publications" and "plagiarism", and the characterization of a citation or document is subjective. Disclaimer Latest News. StumbleUpon.com: Discover the Best of the Web. Netvibes - Dashboard Everything.