Young hydrologic society a network for young hydrologists ortega y gasset la rebelion de las masas

##########

The tenth edition of the STAHY International Workshop, STAHY 2019, is organized by the International Commission on Statistical Hydrology (ICSH) of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS), in cooperation with the Hohai University. It will be held in Nanjing, China betweeb 19-20 October 2019 at the College of Hydrology and Water Resources, Hohai University. The potential participants could submit 1-page abstract through the IAHS-Copernicus Abstract Management System (will open soon).

STAHY 2019, similarly to previous editions ( STAHY 2018 in Adelaide, South Australia STAHY 2017 in Warsaw, Poland), will focus on statistical methods for hydrological applications. The topics range from big data to extremes and climate change but also prediction and uncertainty. This diversity makes this conference so interesting. I participated in this conference twice and I can highly recommend the participation.

Due to the small community with about 100 people, the conference is very familiar and one gets in touch with the other researchers o gastroenterologista cuida do que easily. It has been a great opportunity for me as an early career scientist to talk to experts about my research. On the day before this workshop (Oct 18, 2019), also an Early Career Course will be held as well as a short reception for the early career members. Further information can be found at: http://www.stahy2019.org.

Writing my first full science proposal in a new tenure-track gas x strips side effects position was challenging but, honestly, most sections flowed smoothly from my fingertips. The motivation, background, research approach, hypotheses, methods, and even project and data management plans fit snuggly together beneath the overarching question: Will forests interact differently with rainfall along a natural-to-urban continuum? Then, confidently, I wrote “Broader Impacts” in bold, sipped my single-origin third-wave coffee, and stared blankly at the blinking text cursor. Every other blink interrupted my stream-of-thought until, after mere minutes, the cursor had elevated itself from nuisance to arch-nemesis. It became clear that each blink was a taunt as it shed its disguising vowel for a more rancorous one, becoming the villainous “Curs er.” Unluckily, I knew this villain all too well. I also knew that I had to act fast, before the Curser’s mocking winks dissolved my thoughts to mush! With astonishing rapidity, my fingers fluttered out several sentences, forcing the Curser to retreat down the page. There it sat, one line below my newest paragraph, derisively staring at this anemic assembly of platitudinous promises. Like a bot trained by reading innumerable “Broader Impacts” sections, I had spewed out some vanilla text pudding that blandly promised to “present and publish findings,” “integrate a gas mixture is made by combining work into my courses,” “extend current scientific theory,” and so on …list abbreviated as to not bore the reader any more than was necessary. I locked an unflinchingly open stare with the Curser’s unflinchingly blinking slash. It was clear: The battle for unique broader impacts had begun! Continue reading →

Understanding and learning from unexpected results is a fundamental element of science. Different names exist for these results, e.g., failures, obstacles, or unexpected results. Although all of these names sound unexpected, they are important for the understanding of processes, developing and testing of theories, and identifying pitfalls and possible dead-ends in science.

By carefully designing and conducting experiments with some level of trial-and-error, researchers eventually find results that will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Paradoxically, we typically only publish the successful tests and their results. What comes of the weeks to months of critical information that led to this successful experiment? It usually remains in the dark. However, not sharing unsuccessful iterations or unexpected results — defined here as experiments that do not adequately confirm an accepted hypothesis, despite sound and careful experimental design, planning, and execution — along the way prevents others to learn from these endeavors (Nature Editorial, 2017).

In the past, many philosophers, including Popper (1963) and Chalmers (1973), have emphasized that science can only advance by learning from mistakes. Moreover, recent literature in various fields elaborate on the many benefits and values of publishing unexpected results and call upon the scientific community to nurture their dissemination (e.g., Andréassian, et al., 2010; Schooler, 2011 gaston y astrid lima; Matosin et al., 2014; Granqvist, 2015; Goodchild van Hinten, 2015; Boorman, et al., 2015; PLOS collections; 2015, 2017; Nature Editorial, 2017). Despite the various calls to report such results and gas z factor the frequency they occur in the labspace, they are still underrepresented in most fields of our current publication system. The reasons can be manifold such as, a lack of incentive (no scientific reward) or the fear of a negative reputational impact.

We aim to stimulate this discussion via the new Young Hydrologic Society collection “ Unexpected Results in Hydrology”. We want to instill a positive perception to change the way in which the scientific hydrologic community value unexpected and negative results including individual researchers, scientific societies, funding agencies, and publishers. Therefore, we invite researchers to report their negative and unexpected results, such that we are able to holistically advance science – by sharing our failures, not only our successes.

Reporting on such findings should include the following components in a maximum of 3,000 words: 1) an original research objective and expected results, 2) a brief summary of experimental design and methods, 3) discussion on the experimental results and challenges, including images and/or figures, and possibly 4) lessons learned and the path forward.

After a peer-review done by the editors of this collection, the post will get a DOI and will be visible on the YHS website and on a dedicated ResearchGate project site. On ResearchGate we invite discussions on published submissions such that the authors can receive feedback to facilitate gas vs electric oven efficiency new insights from the scientific community. Upon enhancing their previous analysis or coming to new conclusions, we welcome resubmissions by the original authors. References

Early Career scientists make up a significant amount of our community, creating an opportunity to include a new generation of hydrologists as active contributors to IAHS. Early Career scientist involvement in geoscientific organizations has rapidly increased over recent years. Organizations such as the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the European Geosciences Union (EGU) have adopted Early Career representation in committees, board and executive committees.

During its Bureau Meeting in July 2017 (held in Port Elizabeth, South Africa following the IAHS Scientific Assembly 2017), IAHS decided to strengthen its Early Career scientist representation to enable more active participation of those members within IAHS Commissions and Working Groups. To achieve this goal, in line with the proposal submitted by Tim van Emmerik and Nilay Dogulu—and approved by the Bureau members—IAHS will establish an Early Career Committee (ECC) consisting of the Early Career Representative of each IAHS Commission plus a chair and co-chair. The IAHS definition of Early Career embraces scientists up to 5 years after completion of the PhD (allowing for an extra year per child for parents if they took parental leave).

As a kid imagining a scientist, we always thought of a professor with messy grey hair, weird glasses, handling all sorts of flasks with chemicals in it (including an explosion once in a while). In our mind those chemicals were magic potions to make someone happy or (in case of the Evil Queen from Snow White) to kill somebody. Not exactly what a scientist is or does, right? Other type of scientists we could think of as a kid were the ones that invented stuff like k electric company robots, electric wings (that you could tie on your back and would make you fly), etc. The latter idea might be representing reality a tiny bit more, but most of the scientists are not like these nutty professors or dodgy inventors at all. Soon enough, you’d find out that you do not really know what it means to be a scientist, so why become one? What appeals more to the imagination are doctors, lawyers, teachers, and firemen. So my question nowadays is: how do we stimulate children to go into science? Or, formulated in a different way: how do we stimulate parents to motivate their children to go into science? Let us begin by communicating about the things we do as a scientist and create awareness! After all, we are all trying to make the earth a better place to live on. This can be done as a scientist or by anyone who is interested in science and would like to make his or her own contribution to the world. Therefore it is important to show how science is done a gas has no volume, what its use is and how cool it can be. However, scientific articles might not be the most appealing way to deliver the message. Perhaps an informal blog or a short science video is more effective? Continue reading →