Blog image

Josh Nicholson

and 3 more

When you think of blogging you might think of a blog for cuddly cats, party parrots, the '90s, or celebrity gossip (we will not link to any of those, except cuddly cats). You probably do not think of ground breaking research, original ideas, and a powerful mechanism for research communication. And while you may be largely right, there is a world of blogging that is extremely important, a community that we wish to empower and serve with our latest feature release at Authorea, scientific blogging. In this post we wish to highlight how blogging can improve research, improve researchers career prospects, and why researchers should use a system designed for research blogging, like Authorea.Blogging as a place for correcting the scientific recordBlogging has proven to be integral towards maintaining and correcting the scientific literature. In fact, in many cases it is blogs and other forums where scientific fraud as well as common errors are first highlighted and ultimately corrected \cite{Yeo_2016}.  Blogging as a place for publishing "grey literature"Blogging allows researchers to post different types of content, ranging from journal clubs, peer reviews, single-figure observations, class essays, opinions, etc. There is a huge value to the research community to share "different" types of content, blogging allows researchers to easily do that. Blogging as a place of public outreachNearly all original peer-review publications are paywalled. Meaning it is difficult, if not impossible, for the majority of the world to legally access scientific research. Blogs, however, are nearly all completely open and accessible. More than that, they are also often times accessible in language. The discoveries and recommendations for which society invests substantial economic and human capital, should be directly disseminated by the people who really understand them, and not by the media and the political class, who often over-hype and in some case even distort the results. Blogging can be the long sought bridge between academia and the general public, something increasingly becoming required by grant agencies.Blogging as a way to advance your careerBlogs are by and large thought of as a distraction from communicating scientific ideas in a way that "counts." However, blogs can in many cases have a much larger impact on your career by providing you a forum to communicate with the world. Not all careers and hirers have such a limited way of thinking as tenure committees. Want to start blogging today? Create a group with us for free here. Want a custom design? Email us at 
Thermohaline mixing has recently been proposed to occur in low-mass red giants, with large consequence for the chemical yields of low-mass stars. We investigate the role of thermohaline mixing during the evolution of stars between 1$\mso$ and 3$\mso$, in comparison with other mixing processes acting in these stars. We use a stellar evolution code which includes rotational mixing, internal magnetic fields and thermohaline mixing. We confirm that during the red giant stage, thermohaline mixing has the potential to decrease the abundance of ³He, which is produced earlier on the main sequence. In our models we find that this process is working on the RGB only in stars with initial mass $ \le 1.5\mso$. Moreover we report that thermohaline mixing is also present during core He-burning and beyond, and has the potential to change the surface abundances of AGB stars. While we find rotational and magnetic mixing to be negligible compared to the thermohaline mixing in the relevant layers, the interaction of thermohaline motions with the differential rotation may be essential to establish the timescale of thermohaline mixing in red giants. To explain the surface abundances observed at the bump in the luminosity function, the speed of the mixing process needs to be more than two orders of magnitude higher than in our models. However it is not clear if thermohaline mixing is the only physical process responsible for these surface-abundance anomalies. Therefore it is not possible at this stage to calibrate the efficiency of thermohaline mixing against the observations.
We study the convection zones in the outer envelope of hot massive stars which are caused by opacity peaks associated with iron and helium ionization. We determine the occurrence and properties of these convection zones as function of the stellar parameters. We then confront our results with observations of OB stars. A stellar evolution code is used to compute a grid of massive star models at different metallicities. In these models, the mixing length theory is used to characterize the envelope convection zones. We find the iron convection zone (FeCZ) to be more prominent for lower surface gravity, higher luminosity and higher initial metallicity. It is absent for luminosities below about $10^{3.2}\lso$, $10^{3.9}\lso$, and $10^{4.2}\lso$ for the Galaxy, LMC and SMC, respectively. We map the strength of the FeCZ on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram for three metallicities, and compare this with the occurrence of observational phenomena in O stars: microturbulence, non-radial pulsations, wind clumping, and line profile variability. The confirmation of all three trends for the FeCZ as function of stellar parameters by empirical microturbulent velocities argues for a physical connection between sub-photospheric convective motions and small scale stochastic velocities in the photosphere of O- and B-type stars. We further suggest that clumping in the inner parts of the winds of OB stars could be caused by the same mechanism, and that magnetic fields produced in the FeCZ could appear at the surface of OB stars as diagnosed by discrete absorption components in ultraviolet absorption lines.

Matteo Cantiello

and 1 more

DO YOU NEED LATEX? MAYBE NOT... If you are interested in just inserting simple mathematics or simple inline LaTeX, you do not need to use a full fledged LaTeX mode described in the rest of this document. You can write both math symbols, simple formulae, and even simple LaTeX using the equation button x²y in the toolbar. Read more here. BUT IF YOU WANT TO VENTURE INTO THE LATEX WORLD, KEEP READING... Authorea supports LaTeX, a powerful typesetting program that renders beautiful math notation. In order to insert LaTeX: click on the Insert button in the toolbar and then select LaTeX from the dropdown. A LaTeX label shows next to the LaTeX block in which you can write LaTeX notation. Here are some tips for writing LaTeX in Authorea: 1. Click anywhere outside of the LaTeX block to render it. 2. Hover on Preview to see a Preview of the rendered content. 3. Do not paste an entire LaTeX article! Instead import documents from your homepage. 4. Only type LaTeX content in a LaTeX block, i.e. everything you would write after . 5. Do not type preamble (e.g. documentclass), frontmatter, macros or figures. 6. To add macros (newcommands) and packages, click Settings → Edit Macros 7. Use the Insert Figure button to insert images (and data). 8. Use math mode for equations, e.g. $\mathcal L_{EM}=-\frac14F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}$. 9. Try the citation tool (click cite) to find and add citations, or use \cite{}. 10. To insert more LaTeX blocks click Insert → LaTeX. 11. You can use sectioning commands like \section{},\subsection{},\subsubsection{} to add headings.[1] THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS TO PRESENT A MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION IN LATEX — _INLINE_, AS AN _EQUATION_ OR _DISPLAYSTYLE_. Inline mathematical expressions Inline expressions occur in the middle of a sentence. To produce an inline expression, place the math expression between dollar signs ($). For example, typing $E=mc^2$ yields E = mc². Equations Equations are mathematical expressions that are given their own line and are centered on the page. These are usually used for important equations that deserve to be showcased on their own line or for large equations that cannot fit inline. To produce an inline expression, place the mathematical expression between the symbols \[! and \verb!\]. Typing \[x=}{2a}\] yields \[x=}{2a}.\] Displaystyle To get full-sized inline mathematical expressions use \displaystyle. Typing I want this $\displaystyle ^{\infty} {n}$, not this $^{\infty} {n}$. yields: I want this $\displaystyle ^{\infty}{n}$, not this $^{\infty}{n}.$ SYMBOLS (IN _MATH_ MODE) The basics -------------------------- -------------- --------------- _description_ _command_ _output_ addition + + subtraction - − plus or minus \pm ± multiplication (times) \times × multiplication (dot) \cdot ⋅ division symbol \div ÷ division (slash) / / infinity \infty ∞ dots 1,2,3,\ldots 1, 2, 3, … dots 1+2+3+\cdots 1 + 2 + 3 + ⋯ fraction {b} ${b}$ square root $$ nth root \sqrt[n]{x} $\sqrt[n]{x}$ exponentiation a^b ab subscript a_b ab absolute value |x| |x| natural log \ln(x) ln(x) logarithms b logab exponential function e^x=\exp(x) ex = exp(x) degree \deg(f) deg(f) circle plus \oplus ⊕ circle times \otimes ⊗ equal = = not equal \ne ≠ less than < < less than or equal to \le ≤ greater than or equal to \ge ≥ approximately equal to \approx ≈ -------------------------- -------------- --------------- [1] You can toggle heading numbering on/off from the article settings. This footnote is generated via \footnote{}
Img 3176

Matteo Cantiello

and 2 more

This post was written by Matteo Cantiello, a theoretical astrophysicist at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics and Authorea’s Chief Scientist. It is intended to be published as a post on I am aware that a while back a lot of astronomers have tried out writing their research articles on Authorea, a web-based collaborative writing platform. Some were disappointed by the lack of certain advanced LaTeX features (e.g., deluxetables, now supported). You were disappointed, you told us why, and we just implemented some big changes to make you happy. Authorea now has a “Power LaTeX user” mode which supports a much much larger subset of LaTeX. Essentially everything. And unlike some services such as ScribTeX and WriteLaTeX (previously reviewed on Astrobetter), all your LaTeX renders both to PDF _and_ to HTML (i.e., the web). So, why should you give Authorea a spin and start using it daily for your research? It’s a good question. Here some highlights that might guide that decision. 1. With Authorea, your paper is accessible from any computer, anywhere in the world. 2. You can write your paper from your browser, no installation of TeX required. 3. You can write in LaTeX or in markdown. Advanced LaTeX and tables are now supported. 4. Collaboration is made easy. No need for endless emails threads with multiple draft revisions. 5. Every Authorea paper is a Git repo, version controlled. Again, no installations required. 6. Want to work offline via Github? You can. Authorea becomes the rendered version so that your coauthors can still work with you without having to learn Git. 7. Adding citations has never been easier. One click and done. Believe me, you will never want to go back. 8. You can include data and code in your paper, like IPython Notebooks. This allows for transparency and reproducibility of results. 9. Export to any journal format with just one click. We support all the usual suspects, from ApJ to AJ, from MNRAS to A&A. Switch back and forth between these styles in one click. 10. Powerful commenting system. For internal or even external review. 11. Authorea has templates to get you started fast with your next Astronomy grant proposal or d3.js paper. 12. Did I say deluxetables? Well, here’s the same deluxetable posted on Astrobetter a while back, as it is rendered on Authorea: Ok, enough with the list of fancy features. Here’s my personal experience as an astrophysicist using Authorea. I switched to writing papers with Authorea about a year ago and I noticed a number of immediate improvements: first of all MY PAPERS GET WRITTEN FASTER. Then I noticed that I have NO NEED TO EXCHANGE EMAILS WITH COLLABORATORS concerning the paper. All the action happens (and it’s logged) on Authorea, including discussions about revisions and suggestions for improvements. This said, I didn’t really expect the most important upturn. By getting rid of the overhead I had previously considered a messy unavoidable part of the scientific writing process, something remarkable happened. I actually STARTED ENJOYING WRITING MORE! And I don’t mean just publishing; I had experienced that joy before. The difference is I now cherish the time I spend putting my science into words. It might sound crazy, but Authorea did something amazing: it made me DISCOVER THE PLEASURE OF WRITING SCIENCE TOGETHER with my collaborators. So if you ask me “Why should I write my next paper with Authorea?” my honest answer is “Because you will love it!”. My suggestion is that you take Authorea for a spin and make up your own mind. The Astronomical community has a lot of experience with early adoption and innovation, so your feedback can help to substantially improve this tool. Do you think Authorea is on the right track? Is there a particular feature missing that would improve substantially your workflow? Share your reviews and suggestions in the comments!