![Markus Meister Profile](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/927352997532786688/12ldsLBq_x96.jpg)
Markus Meister
@mameister4
Followers
5K
Following
180
Statuses
352
@dimiterbak @jieyusz Yes that looks compatible. It's a difficult task, and people got only 5 min to practice, so probably didn't reach their capacity limit.
0
0
2
@Timothy0Leary I had previously advertised this paper in preprint form, so peer review was the major addition since then. But I see how the post can be misunderstood...
0
0
0
RT @_TheTransmitter: "[It’s] the largest unexplained number in brain science. I feel like neuroscience should pay more attention to it ..."…
0
11
0
@jpillowtime @SussilloDavid @SebastianSeung Marr's goal was "understanding a complex information processing system". Do you feel that DNNs deliver such "understanding"?
3
0
9
@cshperspectives ...as in "However, it is important to recognize that peer-review by a journal is a first step towards validation, rather than being the final word on it."
0
0
1
@cshperspectives Google scholar can't list the references of an article. So no backwards search. Pubmed lists them but as dead text with no further operations on that list. Also Pubmed scope too limited for interdisciplinary work.
0
0
2
@cshperspectives IMO Google Scholar and Pubmed are too primitive for serious literature review.
1
0
2
@cshperspectives I use WoS for literature research. It's the best tool I know for forward and backward searches in a new area. Nothing to do with impact factors. If eLife papers aren't visible in WoS, I can't honestly recommend that students publish there.
1
0
2
@mbeisen Happens to me less and less. For old papers there's sci-hub (or so I'm told). For new papers preprints. If authors don't preprint, they probably don't want you reading the work.
0
0
2