Poking around in the code of astrophysics papers provides a behind-the-scenes peek at the process of science. Practical, hilarious, and cringe-worthy, this is how new science is discovered.
Astrophysics research papers are regularly deposited in the open-access arXiv electronic archive and distribution server. The papers can be in various states: sometimes they’re papers awaiting peer review, sometimes they’re copies of final drafts published in major journals. The archive’s goal is to provide access to papers perpetually: once submitted, a paper can be revised (with earlier versions still accessible) but never removed.
https://gizmodo.com/stephen-hawking-says-there-are-no-black-holes-1508408816
Many scientists, astrophysicists included, draft their papers using LaTeX, a document markup language. While it doesn’t have inbuilt multi-author tracking systems like commercial word processors, hidden comments allow coauthors to coordinate their efforts. Pair a persistent, versioning archive with papers written with hidden comments in the markup language, and the result is that sometimes a bit more snark makes it into publication than originally intended. That’s where @OverheardOnAph comes in, a Twitter account dedicated to eavesdropping on tex-source comments in astrophysics papers published in arXiv.
The comments can be anything from stern commands to stop changing how a name is spelled, to mundane reminders of tasks left to do before publication. It can give glimpses at the scientists themselves, including frustrated ranting about code that refuses to behave, giddily enthusing about getting paid to play with lasers in space, or musing about the philosophical ramifications of a mathematical error. The comments debate if a particular idea should be elaborated on or deleted entirely, and if a limitation to the data should be highlighted or ignored. Altogether, the result is a peek backstage into the practice of science, getting from the raw observations to the ideas that shape astrophysics. Here’s a sample of some of my favourite accidental commentary:
To-Do list comments only work if you remember to read them:
Remember to take this out when submitting!!!
— Overheard On Astroph (@OverheardOnAph) January 18, 2014
Science is an incremental process, building on the knowledge of others. Acknowledging those who came before without sounding unforgivably arrogant takes finesse:
I took out `our argument follows theirs, improving on rigor' because it makes us sound pedantic while criticising them for unmentioned sins
— Overheard On Astroph (@OverheardOnAph) February 6, 2014
Figuring out who to cite can be a dicy proposition, especially when anyone you forget might be the one conducting peer review:
Can't talk about that without citing both groups!
— Overheard On Astroph (@OverheardOnAph) January 12, 2014
But don’t get too carried away with sharing intellectual glory:
Let's keep the conclusions simple, and focused on our own results
— Overheard On Astroph (@OverheardOnAph) January 14, 2014
Even rocket-scientists need to double-check their math:
Missed a minus sign? Not essential though.
— Overheard On Astroph (@OverheardOnAph) January 11, 2014
and maybe also their grammar:
Something is missing here, because you have 2 verbs.
— Overheard On Astroph (@OverheardOnAph) February 23, 2014
Occasionally, the boundary between astrophysics and metaphysics narrows:
To paraphrase Martin Luther, "Here we stand; we cannot do otherwise."
— Overheard On Astroph (@OverheardOnAph) February 6, 2014
This scenario brings with it other problems, but also new possibilities which change our views of the world and of our own place in it.
— Overheard On Astroph (@OverheardOnAph) February 24, 2014
Scientists are humans, excited by the work that they do:
What a wonderful time to be a cosmologist!
— Overheard On Astroph (@OverheardOnAph) February 10, 2014
and nervous about making mistakes:
I'm not sure I want to go down as having been wrong about this in a review paper.
— Overheard On Astroph (@OverheardOnAph) February 11, 2014
After two months of pulling comments into the light, @OverheardOnAph is starting to get pulled into the comments:
Dear @OverheardOnAph, I'm sorry but there is nothing for you to see here, so please just read the paper. Regards,
— Overheard On Astroph (@OverheardOnAph) March 1, 2014
Image credit: source code excerpt from arXiv:1307.5849 by Montet et al.
