This page provides a few rules which should be used when interpreting results, papers and proposals in Observational Cosmology:
Rule 1 |
You are allowed to throw out 10% of the data on any plot, before
trying to understand what it means. |
Rule 2 |
Always double the error-bar of the last point. |
Rule 3 |
There is no such thing as too cynical when it comes to judging the motives of Time Allocation committees. |
Rule 4 |
Distrust the results of a paper which mentions any of the following: Chaos theory, Fractals or Wavelets. |
Rule 5 |
If you see an observational paper with a theorist as lead author
be very afraid. - sorry Tereasa... :) |
Rule 6 |
If you're stuck for a question during a talk, ask the speaker about how their conclusions would change if they took into account: a) Malmquist bias; b) Magnetic fields; c) Dust. |
Rule 7 |
If the fourth author on a paper has to do any work on it, then the paper is covering too much and should be split in two. |
Rule 8 |
The corollary of Rule 7 is that most projects need no more than three people working on them. If you see a paper with more than three authors try to guess which is the pundit. |
Rule 9 |
There is an optimal ratio of the number of co-I's on a project to the number of objects which will be studied (see figure), when this is exceeded politics and sadness occur. |
Last Modified: November 7th, 1997. [Netscape 2.0]