User talk:SwinburneMel/sandbox

Initial comments

Good evening, SwinburneMel. Thanks for being willing to open the discussion.

First, let's reset expectations. Let's take as an example Jack Dongarra, someone from my own field (and an all around good guy). According to his Google Scholar Profile, his work has been cited 66,000+ times. He has authored or co-authored >40 peer-reviewed publications so far this year.

His wikipedia article has three paragraphs. Only one award is mentioned. None of his papers are listed. None of his patents are listed. None of his media appearances are listed.

This is an excellent example of a biographical article of an academic. It's short, gives the highlights and only the highlights, and has plenty of supporting documentation. The impression you want to leave with the reader is that only a handful of highlights have been listed, and there's plenty more where they came from. For articles where there isn't as much to say, new editors will understandably try to include everything because they're afraid that a short article looks like an insignificant article. The reverse is true: putting in everything tells the reader there's nothing else.

So my first comment to you is: rewrite this to look like Dongarra's article. Don't worry about the "polemic"; we can deal with that later. What I'd like to see now is a one paragraph introduction, a one paragraph summary of the educational background, and a one paragraph summary of what Cuero is known for. Don't worry about citations yet. Don't worry about grammar or polishing sentences. I'm mostly interested in what you think should go into those three paragraphs.

If you prefer, I can propose a draft, but since you know more about the subject than I do you're probably the better person to do this.

Thanks,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lesser Cartographies. Sometimes to compare research is a little complicated . A robotic researcher, who publish an article per year can not be compare with a researcher in computer science. sometimes a Dr can not be compare with a professor. Some researchers don't have PhD students or sometimes don't like to have credit by the research of their students. I admit is complicated. I did some changes i wait for your comments to add the references. The page know is more simple and neutral. and the research is only the principal last research about synthetic biological UV-light blockers.SwinburneMel (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SwinburneMel. I must tell you, there are several robotics| researchers who are computer scientists. A huge part of robotics IS computer science, and the way research is done in both areas is very similar, if not the same. But aside from the examples, the argument you wrote is not relevant to the last thing asked by Lesser Cartographies. Can you provide a short, concise, paragraph that describes the trajectory of Dr. Cuero and his most important work? Juancamilogamboa (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Juancamilogamboa everything follow the same method but the results are not at the same period. IA of mobile robots is a very specific field. An example is Rodney Brooks father of the behaviors that if you try to find him in scholar author is not going to give you results but he is one of the most recognized authors in AI for mobile robots.SwinburneMel (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SwinburneMel: Nice work on the first draft. A few quick questions (go ahead and answer them here, not in the draft):

Where is Dr. Cuero currently employed?
What are the titles of the self motivation books?
What citations to you have for the NASA collaboration?

Juancamilogamboa: Hang on, this is just a first draft. There will be many more.

Thanks,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Dr. Cuero currently employed?

I'm going to have to write him an email.

What are the titles of the self motivation books?

La orfandad de la nueva generación.

Cómo ser creativo para triunfar.

De Buenaventura a la NASA.

What citations to you have for the NASA collaboration?

I have copy of the article but i can not place any technical data.

link

Link

SwinburneMel (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SwinburneMel, that was very helpful. Let's start with the citation.

1. The first link is to a story in High Plains/Midwest AG (Agriculture) Journal. This journal may be an excellent resource for crops and livestock, but it is not an appropriate resource for evaluating scientific discoveries. Note that the story is from August 31, 2009, and contains very little detail of what was actually done.

2. The NIH link gives me the title of the paper ("Induction and Construct UV Protective Yeast Plasmid"), and the date (July 10, 2013). Plugging the title into Google Scholar gives me this result: the paper has never been cited in the peer-reviewed literature. That's not too surprising given how new the paper is, but until the scientific community takes note of this result it will not be included in any encyclopedia article here.

3. Putting Dr. Cuero's name into Google Scholar gave me this result. I see a 1999 paper with 87 citations and am guessing his h-index is around 8 (an h-index of n is the largest values for which you can say the person has authored or co-authored n papers with at least n citations). By way of comparison, I received my Ph.D. in 2010 and my h-index is 7. That's a perfectly appropriate number for a young scientist. As a rule of thumb, a full professor should have an h-index of around 20.

4. This hispanicbusiness.com story details his "Tampa's Museum of Science & Industry 2013 National Hispanic Scientist of the Year". As an award, this is not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. However, this quote illustrates the crux of the problem: "He has been published in more than 110 scientific journals in the fields of biology, microbiology, molecular biology and synthetic biology." That is false.

5. The story is getting an impressive amount of play in the Spanish language press. Should be an interesting article to write. We might want to wait a few more days for things to settle down, then see what we have in the way of sources.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another paragraph to the article in mainspace so readers can have a bit of background. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser Cartographies I just talk with a nanofabrication lecture that works in biological systems a he explain me something that may help. AS the work of Dr Cuero is in specific molecules that are patent the possibility for other research to use the same molecule is zero . that is one of the reason for the low citation of the articles. They announce the discover but the possibility of doing a research based in that articles is small because of the patent. Another information that I discover was the time lapse of the research. In 2009, He with Dr. Mckay discovered a protein to help plants to grow in martian terrain. In the project of terraform of Mart. At the end of that research they discover the possibility to use the same compound for human thats the article for 2013 that haven been publish. The final benefit of all that research at the moment can only be speculations and the real results have to wait until NASA sell to someone the patent. I let you a link form the original university who explain the first patent over protection for UV into plants.SwinburneMel (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up. There's certainly nothing wrong with writing papers that won't get cited very much, or indeed not writing many papers at all.

I would normally be arguing that the low paper count and citation count indicates Dr. Cuero does not have sufficient notability to warrant his own wikipedia article. However, his non-scientific notability is now such that the article will not be deleted.

I do want to be clear: I have seen no evidence that Dr. Cuero inflated his reputation to people in the United States. No one has alleged any scientific fraud. The press in Colombia wanted someone heroic and he enjoyed playing the hero. While this has made him look ridiculous, it isn't scientific misconduct.

I've cited several sources in the existing article, and there should be a few more included that discuss why the press wasn't more skeptical. I'm relying on Google to translate this material. If you read Spanish, could you take a look at the newspaper articles and write up the summary that you would like to see in the article?

Generally, we don't need citations for university degrees, but in this case that would be helpful. Do you know of any sources independent of Dr. Cuero that would have that information? Dates and citations for his time at Prarie View and his employment afterwards would also be helpful.

Thanks again for your help on a difficult article.

PS: I've added your link to the article. Thank you—that was much better than the one I had found.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]