• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Ajmal Action Reported

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
The only article you can point to is the UWA who had no access to the protocols and were making assumptions. Your whole argument is based on a brain fart from UWA who have since kept their mouths shut once they realised that slinging mud only made them look stupid.What efforts have you made to access the reports *****, what efforts have you made to get information from the ICC and what was their response?.
One of the fundamental pillars of scientific process is that you shouldn't HAVE TO ASK to get the information. The information should be openly available.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
The only article you can point to is the UWA who had no access to the protocols and were making assumptions. Your whole argument is based on a brain fart from UWA who have since kept their mouths shut once they realised that slinging mud only made them look stupid.What efforts have you made to access the reports *****, what efforts have you made to get information from the ICC and what was their response?.
I certainly see where you are coming from but beyond the ICC's own posts on this, do you have any further knowledge on the peer review it has been subject to?

We all know what ICC is saying, it's the fact that no one else is saying anything (besides UWA) that is disturbing.
 

TNT

Banned
One of the fundamental pillars of scientific process is that you shouldn't HAVE TO ASK to get the information. The information should be openly available.
The information is freely available, all you need to do is contact the ICC and tell them what you want.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
The information is freely available, all you need to do is contact the ICC and tell them what you want.
Do you understand the meaning of "Shouldn't have to ask"? If they're in control who gets to read it then it's not open peer review.

I assume you've asked them and read through the papers. Care to post them for us?
 

TNT

Banned
Do you understand the meaning of "Shouldn't have to ask"? If they're in control who gets to read it then it's not open peer review.I assume you've asked them and read through the papers. Care to post them for us?
They have been peer reviewed by leading bio mechanics throughout the world, the information is freely available, that is normal practise, where do you want them to put the information, do you expect the ICC to spam every message and forum board on the internet with all their information. I don't know what you want here, the information is there for anyone to access but you want them to find you and give it to you.
 

TNT

Banned
I certainly see where you are coming from but beyond the ICC's own posts on this, do you have any further knowledge on the peer review it has been subject to?We all know what ICC is saying, it's the fact that no one else is saying anything (besides UWA) that is disturbing.
OK Athlai, can you tell me who peer reviewed UWA's protocols, assuming that we accept that they know what they are talking about. Can you identify one other organisation or person outside of UWA that has peer reviewed UWA's protocols and where they have made that information available. According to wellAlbidarned this is information I shouldn't have to ask for and it should be out there, so pony up guys and show me the peer reviews of UWA's protocols. I would find it disturbing that this information is not available from UWA when they expect others to make it available. So all I ask is show me where I can see the peer reviews of UWA's protocols.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
That's not true.
How the **** is it meant to work then? Oh you said bad stuff about my last paper, I'm not going to let you look at it. It's freely available you just have to ask me, except I don't have to give it to you. So it's not freely available.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
How the **** is it meant to work then? Oh you said bad stuff about my last paper, I'm not going to let you look at it. It's freely available you just have to ask me, except I don't have to give it to you. So it's not freely available.
No, it's that journals generally aren't free. You or your research facility pays for subscriptions. Nature just became free though which is cool.

The peer review process works before publication. The journal will ask select scientists in your field to critique your paper.

If you want to critique a paper after publication you can either email the authors or see if you can get another journal to publish your opinion piece. Look up the paper "on the immortality of television sets" to see a hilarious recent example of this.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
As for publication of protocols: It really should go in as a "methods" paper into some journal. It doesn't warrant a full paper because it's not discovering anything.

That's up to the scientists to get off their arses to do though.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
OK Athlai, can you tell me who peer reviewed UWA's protocols, assuming that we accept that they know what they are talking about. Can you identify one other organisation or person outside of UWA that has peer reviewed UWA's protocols and where they have made that information available. According to wellAlbidarned this is information I shouldn't have to ask for and it should be out there, so pony up guys and show me the peer reviews of UWA's protocols. I would find it disturbing that this information is not available from UWA when they expect others to make it available. So all I ask is show me where I can see the peer reviews of UWA's protocols.
Seriously mate?

UWA is a university. They publish these shenanigans in their scientific journals (which are subject to peer review! Yay!) At a quick glance there is quite a bit that has been published over their tenure.

If you go to google scholar and search for UWA Biomechanics and cricket, you'll find quite a few peer reviews of the processes they've used and other issues and analysis of biomechanics experts.

As of yet, no such information has come through via ICC. Which is the concern.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Finally, you might get some peer review comments about a protocol:suggestions, critique, queries about margin of error etc, but noone is going to waste their time critiquing each individual case. This is not cutting edge science.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
No, it's that journals generally aren't free. You or your research facility pays for subscriptions. Nature just became free though which is cool.

The peer review process works before publication. The journal will ask select scientists in your field to critique your paper.

If you want to critique a paper after publication you can either email the authors or see if you can get another journal to publish your opinion piece. Look up the paper "on the immortality of television sets" to see a hilarious recent example of this.
Yup, journals aren't free, but a Uni student can probably access them if their university has already purchased it. All us grumpy graduates have to fork out our own money if you want a journal now.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Also keep in mind the UWA has not given ICC the rights to use their intellectual property if my understanding is correct. Which means the methods and data used by the ICC have to be significantly different.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
Finally, you might get some peer review comments about a protocol:suggestions, critique, queries about margin of error etc, but noone is going to waste their time critiquing each individual case. This is not cutting edge science.
Going to disagree with this, you'll certainly get fairly indepth critiques of any new process because this is their area of expertise. If you have a degree in biomechanics and there is a change in the testing process of anything, there will be a bit of buzz around it initially.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
Also keep in mind the UWA has not given ICC the rights to use their intellectual property if my understanding is correct. Which means the methods and data used by the ICC have to be significantly different.
Which is the concern.

Entirely new process, and the change was due to a dispute over money rather than any implication that UWA have been incorrect. And then we've had quite a remarkable crackdown on bowlers and had some widely varied results from these reports.

And we also have the previous tester raising concerns over the new testing process (who once again was canned over $$ not expertise).

But the ICC are SAYING they have "biomechanical experts" who are happy with the results. I don't really care what the ICC are saying, they're a cricket board. This is science, let the experts do the talking.
 

TNT

Banned
Seriously mate?UWA is a university. They publish these shenanigans in their scientific journals (which are subject to peer review! Yay!) At a quick glance there is quite a bit that has been published over their tenure.If you go to google scholar and search for UWA Biomechanics and cricket, you'll find quite a few peer reviews of the processes they've used and other issues and analysis of biomechanics experts.As of yet, no such information has come through via ICC. Which is the concern.
So who peer reviewed them?. Just give me the names of who peer reviewed them?.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Going to disagree with this, you'll certainly get fairly indepth critiques of any new process because this is their area of expertise. If you have a degree in biomechanics and there is a change in the testing process of anything, there will be a bit of buzz around it initially.
I've just had a quick browse through some of those publications and there's some nice ideas on modelling.

There's certainly much more detail to biomechanics than I gave them credit for (it's still not biochemistry though so they're still inferior).
 

Top