01.10.2018. Bài viết cách đây 16 năm rồi, bằng tiếng Việt.
Phương pháp số Sharpe-Lintner-Mossin: một ứng dụng trên số liệu thị trường chứng khoán Việt Nam 2000-2002 (*bản lưu: pdf file)
Tạp chí: Nghiên cứu Kinh tế volume 42 (2002).
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?
Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?
Analysis, Volume 23, Issue 6, 1 June 1963, Pages 121–123, https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/23.6.121
Friday, September 28, 2018
Mang tên Việt Nam lên bản đồ biên tập khoa học của Nature
28.09.2018. Nhận lời mời chính thức từ Nature và Editor in Chief của tạp chí Scientific Data, tôi đã tham gia ban biên tập (pdf).
https://www.nature.com/sdata/about/editorial-board#Social-Sciences
Phục vụ công tác biên tập khoa học của hệ thống Nature là một vinh dự lớn với bản thân tôi. Việc công ích này cũng góp phần mang tên tổ quốc lên một bản đồ biên tập khoa học được kính trọng toàn cầu. Vinh dự của tôi được nhân đôi.
https://www.nature.com/sdata/about/editorial-board#Social-Sciences
Phục vụ công tác biên tập khoa học của hệ thống Nature là một vinh dự lớn với bản thân tôi. Việc công ích này cũng góp phần mang tên tổ quốc lên một bản đồ biên tập khoa học được kính trọng toàn cầu. Vinh dự của tôi được nhân đôi.
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Hình ảnh trong giấc mơ tuổi thơ
10.05.2016. Hình ảnh này là giấc mơ, là sự tiếc nuối lúc tuổi thơ của tôi. Khi nhìn thấy xác ve sáng sớm ở gốc cây nào đó, trong lòng thắc mắc, vì sao đêm qua mình lại bỏ sót chú ve này. Thật là những suy nghĩ ngây thơ. Xác suất dự báo thời điểm chính xác ve bò ra khỏi tổ là bằng 0, chưa nói ai biết quanh đó có tổ ve không, và chú ve sẽ bò lên cây nào.
Chỉ khác, bây giờ thấy xác ve trong cây sấu bên trong vườn nhà mình, thay vì trước đây là hàng sấu dọc Trần Phú, Điện Biên, hay Phan Đình Phùng.
Chợt như văng vẳng lời ca bài hát Đèn Khuya:
Càng nhớ lại, càng thấy bồi hồi.
Chỉ khác, bây giờ thấy xác ve trong cây sấu bên trong vườn nhà mình, thay vì trước đây là hàng sấu dọc Trần Phú, Điện Biên, hay Phan Đình Phùng.
Chợt như văng vẳng lời ca bài hát Đèn Khuya:
...
Ai biết đêm nay tôi vẫn mong chờ
Tìm lại những phút vui ngày ấu thơ.
Tìm lại những phút vui ngày ấu thơ.
Càng nhớ lại, càng thấy bồi hồi.
An open database of productivity in Vietnam's social sciences and humanities for public use
26.09.2018. My latest publication.
Vuong, Q. H. et al. An open database of productivity in Vietnam's social sciences and humanities for public use. Sci. Data 5:180188 doi: 10.1038/sdata.2018.188 (2018).
File: pdf. URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018188
Vuong, Q. H. et al. An open database of productivity in Vietnam's social sciences and humanities for public use. Sci. Data 5:180188 doi: 10.1038/sdata.2018.188 (2018).
File: pdf. URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018188
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Most popular ESE articles in August
10.09.2018. By Duncan Nicholas, European Science Editing blog. http://ese-bookshelf.blogspot.com/2018/09/most-popular-ese-articles-in-august.html
A look at the top five most read papers from our journal European Science Editing in the month of August.
A peer review card exchange game
Ružica Tokalić & Ana Marušic
Issue 44(3) August 2018. Original Article
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/a-peer-review-card-exchange-game/
Introduction: Peer review aims to ensure the quality of research and help journal editors in the publication process. COST action PEERE, which explores peer review, including its efficiency, transparency and accountability, organised a peer review school endorsed by EASE. We developed a card exchange game based on responsibility and integrity in peer review for a hands-on training session.
Methods: We used the approach for the development of training materials about responsible research and innovation developed by the HEIRRI project, and the principles of the card game for the popularisation of the philosophy of science.
Results: We created 32 card statements about peer review, distributed across 6 domains: Responsiveness, Competence, Impartiality, Confidentiality, Constructive criticism and Responsibility to science. We adapted the instructions for the game and tested the game during the peer review school at the University of Split School of Medicine, Croatia, May 2018. The feedback by the participants was very positive.
Conclusions: The Peer Review Card Exchange Game could be used as an introductory activity for teaching integrity and ethics in peer review training.
“How did researchers get it so wrong?” The acute problem of plagiarism in Vietnamese social sciences and humanities
Quan-Hoang Vuong
Issue: 44(3) August 2018. Essays
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/how-did-researchers-get-it-so-wrong-the-acute-problem-of-plagiarism-in-vietnamese-social-sciences-and-humanities/
This paper presents three cases of research ethics violations in the social sciences and humanities that involved major educational institutions in Vietnam. The violations share two common points: the use of sophistry by the accused perpetrators and their sympathisers, and the relative ease with which they succeeded unpunished. The strategies the violators used to avoid punishment could be summarised as: (i) relying on people not paying enough attention when asked to do something relatively quickly, (ii) asking for the benefit of the doubt, (iii) redefining the meaning of ethics, and (iv) defaming the whistleblowers and showing how fighting ethics violations is too costly, slow and, in the end, worthless. We offer suggestions to improve transparency: investment in translation and education about codes of conduct in Vietnam; investment in research ethics and integrity; the use of open online resources and platforms; and educating Vietnamese researchers about international standards.
3D or 3-D: a study of terminology, usage and style
Andrew J. Woods
Issue: 39(3) August 2013.Original articles
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/3d-or-3-d-a-study-of-terminology-usage-and-style/
The terms “3D” and “3-D” are two alternative acronyms for the term “three-dimensional”. In the published literature both variants are commonly used but what is the derivation of the two forms and what are the drivers of usage? This paper surveys the published stereoscopic literature and examines publication-style policies to understand forces and trends
My life as an editor – John Loadsman
Ksenija Baždarić
Issue: 44(3) August 2018.My Life as an Editor
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/my-life-as-an-editor-john-loadsman/
No abstract
How do authors feel when they receive negative peer reviewer comments? An experience from Chinese biomedical researchers
Kakoli Majumder
Issue: 42(2) May 2016. Original articles
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/how-do-authors-feel-when-they-receive-negative-peer-reviewer-comments-an-experience-from-chinese-biomedical-researchers/
Background: Peer review is at the heart of academic publishing and has long been instrumental in bringing good science to the forefront. Peer reviewer comments provide authors with valuable suggestions to improve their manuscript; thus, even a rejected manuscript with constructive reviewer comments is highly valuable. However, peer reviewer comments can sometimes be negative, rather than constructive, damaging authors’ motivation and confidence levels.
Objective: This study aims to make editors and peer reviewers aware of how negative reviewer comments can affect authors, and suggests ways to ensure that peer review is constructive.
Methods: Through a discussion on DXY, an online community for biomedical researchers in China, authors were asked to share their experiences with negative reviewer comments; 99 participants responded. Separately, similar questions were posted on two other online communities, Academia Stack Exchange and Quora, yielding 11 responses. These responses were analyzed on the basis of their underlying emotion or message.
Results: The authors’ responses indicate that they appreciate receiving constructive reviewer comments and benefit from such comments. However, authors are often demoralized when they receive comments that are superficial, harsh, or overcritical, and do not provide constructive suggestions for improvement.
Conclusion: While it is true that peer review work claims a lot of time and energy from busy scientists, the purpose is lost when reviewer comments are purely negative. If peer reviewers could keep in mind the feelings of authors while drawing up their reports, peer review would become more effective and a more positive experience for authors.
A look at the top five most read papers from our journal European Science Editing in the month of August.
A peer review card exchange game
Ružica Tokalić & Ana Marušic
Issue 44(3) August 2018. Original Article
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/a-peer-review-card-exchange-game/
Introduction: Peer review aims to ensure the quality of research and help journal editors in the publication process. COST action PEERE, which explores peer review, including its efficiency, transparency and accountability, organised a peer review school endorsed by EASE. We developed a card exchange game based on responsibility and integrity in peer review for a hands-on training session.
Methods: We used the approach for the development of training materials about responsible research and innovation developed by the HEIRRI project, and the principles of the card game for the popularisation of the philosophy of science.
Results: We created 32 card statements about peer review, distributed across 6 domains: Responsiveness, Competence, Impartiality, Confidentiality, Constructive criticism and Responsibility to science. We adapted the instructions for the game and tested the game during the peer review school at the University of Split School of Medicine, Croatia, May 2018. The feedback by the participants was very positive.
Conclusions: The Peer Review Card Exchange Game could be used as an introductory activity for teaching integrity and ethics in peer review training.
“How did researchers get it so wrong?” The acute problem of plagiarism in Vietnamese social sciences and humanities
Quan-Hoang Vuong
Issue: 44(3) August 2018. Essays
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/how-did-researchers-get-it-so-wrong-the-acute-problem-of-plagiarism-in-vietnamese-social-sciences-and-humanities/
This paper presents three cases of research ethics violations in the social sciences and humanities that involved major educational institutions in Vietnam. The violations share two common points: the use of sophistry by the accused perpetrators and their sympathisers, and the relative ease with which they succeeded unpunished. The strategies the violators used to avoid punishment could be summarised as: (i) relying on people not paying enough attention when asked to do something relatively quickly, (ii) asking for the benefit of the doubt, (iii) redefining the meaning of ethics, and (iv) defaming the whistleblowers and showing how fighting ethics violations is too costly, slow and, in the end, worthless. We offer suggestions to improve transparency: investment in translation and education about codes of conduct in Vietnam; investment in research ethics and integrity; the use of open online resources and platforms; and educating Vietnamese researchers about international standards.
3D or 3-D: a study of terminology, usage and style
Andrew J. Woods
Issue: 39(3) August 2013.Original articles
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/3d-or-3-d-a-study-of-terminology-usage-and-style/
The terms “3D” and “3-D” are two alternative acronyms for the term “three-dimensional”. In the published literature both variants are commonly used but what is the derivation of the two forms and what are the drivers of usage? This paper surveys the published stereoscopic literature and examines publication-style policies to understand forces and trends
My life as an editor – John Loadsman
Ksenija Baždarić
Issue: 44(3) August 2018.My Life as an Editor
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/my-life-as-an-editor-john-loadsman/
No abstract
How do authors feel when they receive negative peer reviewer comments? An experience from Chinese biomedical researchers
Kakoli Majumder
Issue: 42(2) May 2016. Original articles
http://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/how-do-authors-feel-when-they-receive-negative-peer-reviewer-comments-an-experience-from-chinese-biomedical-researchers/
Background: Peer review is at the heart of academic publishing and has long been instrumental in bringing good science to the forefront. Peer reviewer comments provide authors with valuable suggestions to improve their manuscript; thus, even a rejected manuscript with constructive reviewer comments is highly valuable. However, peer reviewer comments can sometimes be negative, rather than constructive, damaging authors’ motivation and confidence levels.
Objective: This study aims to make editors and peer reviewers aware of how negative reviewer comments can affect authors, and suggests ways to ensure that peer review is constructive.
Methods: Through a discussion on DXY, an online community for biomedical researchers in China, authors were asked to share their experiences with negative reviewer comments; 99 participants responded. Separately, similar questions were posted on two other online communities, Academia Stack Exchange and Quora, yielding 11 responses. These responses were analyzed on the basis of their underlying emotion or message.
Results: The authors’ responses indicate that they appreciate receiving constructive reviewer comments and benefit from such comments. However, authors are often demoralized when they receive comments that are superficial, harsh, or overcritical, and do not provide constructive suggestions for improvement.
Conclusion: While it is true that peer review work claims a lot of time and energy from busy scientists, the purpose is lost when reviewer comments are purely negative. If peer reviewers could keep in mind the feelings of authors while drawing up their reports, peer review would become more effective and a more positive experience for authors.
Saturday, September 15, 2018
Bài đọc nhiều nhất IJTIS tháng 9-2018
15.09.2018. IJTIS thống kê hàng tháng bài đọc nhiều. Tháng này có hai bài cũ xuất trong top 10 most read (pdf file).
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Special Issue "Social Public Health System and Sustainability"
13.09.2018. A special issue of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050). This special issue belongs to the section "Social Ecology and Sustainability". Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 September 2019.
Journal Impact Factor: 2.075 (2017) ; 5-Year Impact Factor: 2.177 (2017)
CiteScore: 2.37 (2017)
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Publons' 2018 Peer Review Awards
SSHPA (12-09-2018) – Sau nhiều ngày chờ đợi, cuối cùng Publons (thuộc Clarivate Analytics Web of Science) đã gọi tên những nhà bình duyệt, biên tập viên, viện nghiên cứu có những thành tựu và đóng góp không mệt mỏi cho bình duyệt khoa học trong năm 2018.
Publons Peer Review Awards 2018
12.09.2018. Awarded in the Peer Review Week 2018, 10 to 15 Sept 2018 (pdf). URL: https://publons.com/community/awards/peer-review-awards-2018/
Over 6,000 experts are honored as world-class peer reviewers and editors in Publons’ 2018 global Peer Review Awards!
The awards, announced during this year’s Peer Review Week, celebrate reviewers as the #SentinelsofScience and research, tirelessly proving their unwavering commitment towards the quality and integrity of scholarly communication.
In 2018, there were:
Over 6,000 experts are honored as world-class peer reviewers and editors in Publons’ 2018 global Peer Review Awards!
The awards, announced during this year’s Peer Review Week, celebrate reviewers as the #SentinelsofScience and research, tirelessly proving their unwavering commitment towards the quality and integrity of scholarly communication.
In 2018, there were:
- 230+ award-winning reviews written for more than 10,000 journals
- 2,000+ institutions named as housing the world’s top reviewers and editors
- 100+ countries celebrated for hosting our 6,000+ award-winners
- 38 Publons Academy graduates named in this year’s awards.
Saturday, September 8, 2018
Bài từ 13 năm trước, nay cited
08.09.2018. Hôm nay thấy báo có bài được trích dẫn. Cái hay là bài từ 2005, nay có trích dẫn như là sống lại.
Monday, September 3, 2018
Hetalizine - Always by your side
03.09.2018. Dự án vẽ tranh, in sách và bán của Thu Trang: Hetalizine - Always by your side.
Nay đã hoàn thành, sách in cũng bán gần hết và bản mềm đưa lên Google Books lưu trữ: Google Books Item
Nay đã hoàn thành, sách in cũng bán gần hết và bản mềm đưa lên Google Books lưu trữ: Google Books Item
Khoa học Trung Quốc ngày nay giàu quá!
03.09.2018. Bài nghiên cứu này tôi là một trong 4 reviewers bình duyệt bản thảo nộp. Cũng là reviewer đề nghị cho đăng sau lượt sửa thứ nhất: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090377. Bây giờ, ban biên tập liên lạc lại cho biết bài cuối cùng được chấp thuận và đã xuất bản. Tạp chí này rất uy tín có JIF 1.256 và CiteScore 1.32, và trong Q1 Scopus (86% percentile 44/327) của phân mục lớn General Mathematics. Tất nhiên vì thế mà các tác giả phấn khởi rồi.
Tuy thế điều đáng nói là, việc xong rồi nay có dịp nhìn lại tổng thể (lúc trước cắm mặt vào các yếu tố kỹ thuật, không có dịp quan sát). Chợt nhận ra, sau khi học đếm như trẻ con, rằng chỉ riêng dự án nghiên cứu này đã nhận được tài trợ từ 9 nguồn tài chính khác nhau!
Chỉ biết thốt lên là Trung Quốc nay giầu quá. Đầu tư cho khoa học của họ nhiều quá. Và các tác giả của họ có điều kiện vượt trội so với ngay cả các nhà nghiên cứu của Châu Âu và Mỹ.
Tuy thế điều đáng nói là, việc xong rồi nay có dịp nhìn lại tổng thể (lúc trước cắm mặt vào các yếu tố kỹ thuật, không có dịp quan sát). Chợt nhận ra, sau khi học đếm như trẻ con, rằng chỉ riêng dự án nghiên cứu này đã nhận được tài trợ từ 9 nguồn tài chính khác nhau!
Chỉ biết thốt lên là Trung Quốc nay giầu quá. Đầu tư cho khoa học của họ nhiều quá. Và các tác giả của họ có điều kiện vượt trội so với ngay cả các nhà nghiên cứu của Châu Âu và Mỹ.
Sunday, September 2, 2018
Giáo sư 74 tuổi của Đại học Kinh tế Quốc dân Hà Nội lại có bài mới quốc tế WoS và Scopus Q2
02.09.2018. GS Đàm Văn Nhuệ, Đại học Kinh tế Quốc dân, Hà Nội tiếp tục có công bố cùng các đồng tác giả trên tạp chí International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH), có hệ số tác động Journal Impact Factor 2.145 năm 2017 (theo báo cáo Journal Citation Reports 2018 của Clarivate Analytics).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)