Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
What is this?
Less
More

Memberships

Research Career Club

714 members • Free

BookRich Profits Club™

610 members • Free

Hacksmith's Free Peptalk Group

1.8k members • Free

Driven Publishers

4.4k members • Free

Publish. Promote. Profit.

4.6k members • Free

2 contributions to Research Career Club
Comments on my abstract
Hi everyone, Sharing the abstract below for feedback before I take this paper further. I'd especially welcome blunt reactions on whether it reads as a genuine prior layer or just a relabeling of what existing frameworks already do — and whether the opening lands on a first read. Abstract Before evidence can be weighed, it must first be constituted as an evidential object. Every evidential evaluation rests on three components: a focal claim, the observations admissible as its instances, and what each instance contributes. Specifying them jointly — a prior methodological step I call evidential instantiation — is typically left implicit.I call their joint specification — a prior methodological step — evidential instantiation. This step is typically left implicit. Examined through this tripartite structure, seven recurrent methodological difficulties — among them pseudoreplication, conflicting conclusions from the same data, and incommensurable meta-analyses — become intelligible as manifestations of a common structure. The same structure provides a common basis for comparing established methodological frameworks: because they were developed for different methodological tasks, each makes some components explicit while leaving others implicit or presupposed — rarely the whole. The present account specifies that step, complementing these frameworks. I provide an initial formalization of this tripartite structure, making all three components explicit and inspectable at once, in terms that hold across domains. Making them explicit does not guarantee correct evaluation; it makes recurrent evidential difficulties systematically locatable — and thus diagnosable — in the claim, the admissible instances, or their contribution. This is not a calibrated instrument. It specifies the evidential object that existing inferential frameworks presuppose before evidence can be weighed, leaving domain-specific calibration to future work. Keywords: evidential instantiation; metascience; research methodology; measurement; evidence synthesis; reproducibility
1 like • 4d
@Tom Witting I completely agree. The distinction between what counts as evidence and how that evidence is evaluated is often overlooked, so making it explicit gives the framework much more clarity. The Barry Marshall example is also a great way to introduce the idea because it connects the theory to a real-world case that readers can immediately understand. Have you considered testing the revised introduction with a small group of readers to see whether they grasp the distinction more quickly?
0 likes • 4d
@Tom Witting Thank you for the thoughtful clarification. Your distinction between evidential constitution and evidential evaluation is very clear, and I can see how making that separation explicit strengthens the framework. It’s particularly interesting that many existing approaches focus primarily on evaluating evidence while taking for granted the criteria that determine what counts as evidence in the first place. I also think the Barry Marshall example is a strong choice for the introduction. It provides a concrete and memorable case that illustrates how a single observation can carry significant evidential weight when it directly addresses a specific claim. Introducing it early should help readers grasp the distinction intuitively before engaging with the more formal aspects of the framework. As you continue refining the paper, do you anticipate adding other examples from different disciplines to demonstrate how evidential constitution may vary across contexts?
Industry led papers (non-academic)
Hi - I've been in the Geospatial Industry 15years (vendor/technology company) background. I have bachelors and post graduate degrees in Science (GIS) but also a recent Masters of Business Development (Innovation & Product Management). I have started my own business, focusing on capability development in Earth Observation - I am not a university researcher - however I once came across many in the industry who published papers - How is this possible without being currently associated with a research institute? thank you
0 likes • 6d
@Angela Manchester Thank you for sharing your background. With your extensive experience in the geospatial industry, combined with your academic qualifications and focus on Earth Observation capability development, you already bring a valuable perspective that many journals and industry publications appreciate. It is definitely possible to publish papers without being affiliated with a university or research institute. Many industry professionals, consultants, and business owners publish articles, white papers, case studies, and even peer-reviewed research based on their expertise, project outcomes, data analysis, and practical innovations. The key factors are usually the quality of the work, the strength of the methodology, and whether the publication's requirements are met regarding transparency, reproducibility, and evidence. In many fields, collaboration between industry and academia is also common, but it is not always required. Independent researchers and practitioners can contribute meaningful insights, especially when they have access to unique datasets, real-world applications, or industry experience that advances knowledge in the field. Have you considered publishing a case study or industry-focused paper based on your Earth Observation work and the practical challenges you've encountered in the field?
0 likes • 6d
@Angela Manchester Thank you for sharing more about your background and interests. I find your perspective really interesting, especially the way you're looking at bridging the gap between highly technical fields like GIS and EO with the practical needs of business leaders and decision-makers. You're absolutely right that many advanced technologies have tremendous potential but often remain underutilized because the knowledge stays within technical teams and isn't translated into a form that business managers can easily understand and apply. The challenge of capability development and organizational adoption is just as important as the technology itself. Your idea of focusing on business-building while pursuing topic-specific papers also makes a lot of sense. It allows you to gain practical experience and industry insight while continuing to deepen your expertise in areas that matter most to you. In many cases, that combination of hands-on experience and targeted learning can create a significant impact. I'm curious, have you identified any specific EO applications or industries where you think this gap between technical capability and business adoption is most evident?
1-2 of 2
Bright Keane
1
3points to level up
@bright-keane-7509
Looking to share ideas and gain ideas as well

Active 11h ago
Joined Jun 9, 2026