Aquarium - Radio Aerostat vol. 347

Иногда сталкиваешься с замечательным явлением - логика от обратного. Допустим, все делают "вот так"; а ты говоришь: "А я не такой, как все - и поэтому я буду делать прямо наоборот". И таким образом - сам того не замечая - попадаешь в ловушку: делаешь не то, что хочешь делать, а что-то, что решал и определял не ты. То есть оказываешься марионеткой в чьих-то руках.

Великолепный поэт Иосиф Бродский был еще и удивительно едким и свободолюбивым мыслителем, за что и был выслан из СССР.
Про него рассказывают известную историю: "Бродскому однажды сказали: "Пойдем к такому-то, он известный антисоветчик". Бродский ответил: "Советчик, антисоветчик, какая разница, они оба меня не интересуют. Это две стороны одной и той же монеты".

И раз уж мы упомянули Бродского - уважение мое к нему как к мастеру слова огромно, но еще больше я уважаю его, как комментатора жизни.
"Всячески избегайте приписывать себе статус жертвы... Каким бы отвратительным ни было ваше положение, старайтесь не винить в этом внешние силы: историю, государство, начальство, расу, родителей, фазу луны, детство, несвоевременную высадку на горшок и т. д. В момент, когда вы возлагаете вину на что-то, вы подрываете собственную решимость что-нибудь изменить".

И еще: "Вообще, старайтесь уважать жизнь не только за ее прелести, но и за ее трудности. Они составляют часть игры, и хорошо в них то, что они не являются обманом. Всякий раз, когда вы в отчаянии или на грани отчаяния, когда у вас неприятности или затруднения, помните: это жизнь говорит с вами на единственном хорошо ей знакомом языке".
Мудрые слова. Говорят, что любое переживание - это урок танцев. преподанный Господом Богом. А раз так - почему бы не улыбнуться? И сказать спасибо.
©

Be Warned! Top 10 Chinese-Westerner Misunderstandings (According to Chinese)

Editor's note: While many articles have been written about cross-cultural misunderstandings and miscommunications between foreigners and Chinese, often times, these articles are written from the perspective of the expat. The following article, which recently appeared on wenxuecity.com, follows similar ground but from a Chinese perspective, and for a Chinese audience (hence all of references to "foreigners" which in this case, generally means "Westerners"). While we may think that some of the explanations are a bit odd, it is nonetheless an interesting piece of cultural anthropology. With no further ado, here are the top ten misunderstands according to Chinese.

Be Warned! Top 10 Chinese-Westerner Misunderstandings (According to Chinese)
news.269.net

1) Praise (赞美)
Foreigners take delight in praising others, and are also happy to receive praise, but Chinese will often refuse another person's praise in order to demonstrate their modesty. This refusal will likely baffle foreigners, as it seems to them that you don't accept their sentiment. Meanwhile, Chinese will often say kind words to another person with whom they are trying to curry favour. One way we ingratiate ourselves is by telling guests things like: "You must be tired? You should go and have a good rest" (您应该很累吧？好好休息一下). However foreigners will misunderstand this common greeting, and instead think that you are commenting on the state of their physical appearance. Foreigners really like it when others exaggerate their youthfulness or strength, and if you question their physical heath (as in the above example), they may get upset.

2) Saying "Thank you" (致谢)
Chinese believe that you needn't say "thank you" to family members or good friends after they help you, and that saying such a thing actually implies an unfriendly or estranged relationship. But foreigners are accustomed to saying "thank you" when a family member or good friend helps them, and they are taught to use polite language such as "thanks" and "please". So, when you're hanging out with foreigners, you definitely don't want to be ungenerous with your "thank yous". Not saying "thanks" will cause foreigners to assume that you are shy or impolite.

3) Traveling with a friend (出游)
When Chinese travel with friends, if someone wants to buy some souvenir, they will generally first calculate how many people are in the group, and then purchase accordingly. Even if someone politely declined, Chinese will still buy one for him or her. But when travelling with a foreigner, if you decline a souvenir, don't expect to get one anyway. Foreigners believe that they are respecting your decision by not buying you something after you've declined it. So, if you really want something, you should directly say so. And afterwards, be sure to sincerely thank them (see #2); in their eyes, that's the polite way of doing it.

4) Addressing (称呼)
When foreigners hear Chinese referring to them as laowai (老外), they're unhappy, because they don't think of themselves as being old, but as young and healthy. It's only after they hear Chinese call a small child laowai that they realise that it has nothing to do with age, that it's just a respectful form of address for foreigners.

5) Seeing somebody off (送别)
The manner in which Chinese express emotions is relatively restrained. When seeing somebody off, choking back your tears, being stingy in your embrace and other "indifferent" displays of affection will deeply shock foreigners. So, if you're saying goodbye to a foreigner, your manner should be a bit more unrestrained, lest you want them to think of you as cold-hearted.

6) Give yourself a round of applause (鼓掌)
During Chinese public speeches, if others start applauding something the speaker has said, to express his or her gratitude, the speaker will generally pause the speech and start clapping along with the audience. Foreigners don't understand why you'd want to applaud yourself, which they see as very immodest. So, if your giving a speech in front of a bunch of foreigners, it'd be better to bow or wave instead of applause. Of course, just smiling and standing there is an option as well.

7) Eye contact (眼神)
For many Chinese, when talking with others or giving a public speech, we shy away from making eye contact with the audience, as it's considered quite rude. But when foreigners give public speeches, they are sure to keep near-constant eye contact with the audience, and it's unlikely that you'll see a public speaker who buries their head in their manuscript while talking. If you don't have the courage to keep eye contact with your audience during your public speech, then don't expect the audience to interact or fully engage in what you're saying.

8) Gift giving (送礼)
Chinese like to give gifts in pairs, such as two bottles of wine, two cigarettes etc. This is done both to show that we are not stingy, and because two is a culturally auspicious number. Also, when visiting a friend or a relative's house, it's very common for us to bring them some fruit. But in the West, when someone gives someone else a bottle of wine as a gift, it is always a single bottle. Perhaps this is because it is custom to drink the bottle of wine that the guest brings with the meal, and if the guest brings two bottles of wine, it would seem as if they are a bit of an alcoholic. It's also uncommon for foreigners to bring fruit to a friend or relative's house – fruit is generally the kind of gift that you'd bring someone staying in a hospital. Also, when Chinese receive gifts from others, it's custom to take the gift and quietly set it aside and wait to open the gift until after the guests have left (lest they come off as greedy). Conversely, foreigners hope that you'll open the gift in front of them, and then thank you for the gift afterward.

9) Being a guest in someone's house (做客)
When Chinese visit someone's house, they like to roam about and peak around at everything. But how will foreigners look upon these acts? Although it's hospitable to make a guest feel at home, for foreigners, it's still taboo for guests to meander around their house nonchalantly invading their privacy. Similarly, we should refrain from asking them about private matters such as their salary, age etc.

10) Eating (吃饭)
Many misunderstandings with foreigners take place at the dinner table. When Chinese invite foreigners to eat at their house, they will likely prepare 8-10 dishes. It's best to mentally prepare the foreigners for the size of the meal to come, otherwise they will probably not have any room left by the time the final dishes come out. If you go to a foreigner's house for a meal, there may only be one or two dishes on the table. Also, the way foreigners will comment on the meal ("These dishes are all so tasty") are completely different from the way Chinese people comment on the meal ("this dish is too [X]…I'll make due with it and eat a little bit.").

Chinese express their interest in others by giving them bits of food to eat, which foreigners never do – they're most happy to let people pick and choose what they want to eat by themselves. Also, when dining with a foreigner, don't act humble or subtle about what you want to eat – most foreigners are very direct, and if they ask you if you like eating something and you politely decline, they'll respect your decision and won't try to give it to you again. So, when dining with foreigners, if you're hungry, let them know!

In short, foreigners' expressions and methods of dealing with people are very direct, and Chinese are more tactful.
©

Aquarium - Radio Aerostat vol. 350

То, что можно алгоритмизировать, можно продать. А как замечательно сказал однажды старец Лао Инь, настоятель монастыря Одинокого Пика, что рядом с монастырем Шао Линь в Денфене: "Если путь продать, то по чему тогда идти?".
©

The impact of Chinese migration: We like to move it move it

Few forces have influenced the modern world economy as much as Chinese migration

IF YOU purchased one of the 1.8 billion mobile phones shipped around the world last year, there is a 50% chance it was put together in the Chinese province of Guangdong. There is also a good chance it was not assembled by a native Guangdonger, but by one of the millions of migrants who have left their homes and travelled to the coast to find work. Grinding poverty has long been a cause of migration and was the impetus again after the death of Mao Zedong in 1976. The story of migration since then is the story of modern China, as migrant workers have transformed China’s economy.

Kam Wing Chan of the University of Washington has compiled statistics which show that from 1990 to 2005—the most recent period for which reliable statistics are available—there was an overall gross migration across provinces of about 80m migrants (see map). An increasing number also migrate within their own province. All told, some 230m Chinese spend most of the year away from their home town or village. This is almost a third of all people globally estimated by the UN to be migrating within the borders of their own country. Most migrants move in search of work. The number of rural Chinese working away from home is now almost 160m, or 12% of the country’s population. The Chinese government’s population-planning commission forecasts another 100m rural residents could move to cities by 2020. As migration patterns change, though (see article), expect to see rapid social and economic change across inland China.
©

Radio Aerostat vol. 353

Вот есть такие стихи династии Тан.

"Осенние листья падают как дождь.
И хотя все мои соседи варвары,
А ты в тысяче верст от меня,
На моем столе - всегда две чаши".
©

Refereeing a journal article. part 3. writing the feedback

Having read the article carefully, and decided whether it’s accept without change, revise and resubmit or reject, there is now the task of writing the feedback to the author/s.

There are four things to keep in mind when writing feedback:

(1) Write the kind of comments you expect to get

Most journals suggest that feedback to author/s should be positive and offer concrete advice. However this is not always what happens.

I have seen some truly awful feedback destined for authors. Among the worst… This is the kind of article that gives this methodology a bad name… This is a naïve and simplistic view of… The author has clearly never read beyond… I would fail this if it was a first year essay… This is just awful. There is usually an opportunity to say this kind of thing to an Editor if you must, but it is devastating for author/s to get such off-handed, smart-alec comments.

It’s also not helpful to become teacherly. This is a peer writing, it’s not a student essay. Even if this is obviously written by a doctoral researcher, they are expecting to be dealt with as a colleague, not sent to the kiddy table.

Feedback comments should be appreciatively critical, just like the reading of the article. Generosity of spirit and collegiality in tone is the order of the writing feedback day.

(2) Use a structure for the feedback which allows the author to follow what you are saying.

Remember that the author/s now know that they need to do more, so they are reading with a sinking heart. So you need to be specific as well as kind.

I generally aim for three quarters to a page in length, unless it is an accept without change –this is usually just a paragraph or two saying what I think is great about the paper.

I have a bit of a formula I use for reviews. So here’s what I do – it’s not the only way to write feedback of course, but it’s ONE way to approach the task.

• Write two to four sentences summarising what the paper is about. So something like… This paper addresses… and presents evidence that … . The author/s argue that… This gives the author the chance to see whether you have understood what they wanted to say. If you haven’t got it, they can then consider how they might have produced this misreading.

• If you really enjoyed reading the article, say so now before you start with the concerns.

• Write something about the contribution, as in… The article clearly makes a contribution to/has the potential to add to what we know about/will make a significant addition to … This might be linked to a caveat such as… but needs further work in order to bring this to fruition/realise its potential, needs some revision in order to achieve this.

• Then, if there are suggested revisions, say whether they are major or minor and how many there are, as in .. I have two suggestions for major revisions and one more minor point… or I offer some issues that the author/s needs to consider in the methodological section and a recommendation for some restructuring of the findings…

• Then dispassionately state the changes that you think are necessary, based on your reading of the article. Try to focus on the things that are the most fundamental.

You may just outline the problem (s) and suggest that the author/s needs to find a way of resolving it/them. You might offer one or two suggestions. Or you might have something very definite in mind. Any of these is OK, although just outlining the problem can be a bit scary for the author/s when they come to revise. Whatever, you just need to be explicit about which of these you are doing.

If there is reading that the author/s need to do, give them the references, don’t just say there is literature out there that they ought to know about.

If you are suggesting major revisions, then there probably isn’t much point in outlining twenty five specific things for the author/s to do; it’s the big bits that are the most important for the author/s to grasp. Too much detail and they will be completely confused/overwhelmed/dispirited. And if it’s major revisions you will get another look at the paper, at which time you can pick up any small things that still need resolution.

Finally, succintly list any grammatical, proofing and referencing problems.

• Conclude with some encouragement. This might involve repeating the potential contribution and the importance/value of the author/s continuing to work on the piece.

(3) Be clear

Reviews can be written in a kind of code, just like real estate advertisements. While it is important not to be rude/sarcastic/patronising, it is just as important to be clear. If there is a problem that you can see with an aspect of the paper, say what it is and don’t waffle. Don’t say The references need attention , say The references need to be in the appropriate journal style. Don’t say The methodology section needs to be clearer, say The methodology section needs to include information about the site, sample and types of data generated as well as the methods of analysis. Etc.

The clearer the feedback the more chance the author/s has of deciding whether they agree with you and/or doing exactly what’s needed to get the article to publication.

(4) Don’t tell them to read all your work – unless you really ARE the key figure in the field

This can be really hard. After all, you’ve been sent the article to review on the basis of your expertise and you know how your work might help. BUT refereeing is not about upping your citations, it’s about the author/s writing about their work and they don’t have to cite everything in the field in order to do this. Perhaps the tip is to only require a reference to your work if it’s central to the argument being made.
©

Refereeing a journal article. part 2: making a recommendation

Journals always ask reviewers to recommend whether an article should be published as is, or whether the writer should do small or large revisions. They also ask if the article should be rejected outright.

Making a publication recommendation can feel like the hardest part of the reviewing process.

New reviewers often think they don’t have enough experience…. They don’t know enough about the journal, they don’t yet have a strong, internalised sense of what makes for a good article – after all they haven’t written a lot themselves. They think, erroneously but understandably, who am I to decide this? They forget that they have actually READ a lot. Reviewing can also produce feelings of anxiety, guilt or sadness – we know that someone, somewhere, could be bitterly disappointed by what we have recommended. These negative feelings are not necessarily rational – but they are a logical response to the game of journal publication.

Perhaps this is why newish reviewers most usually opt for what seems to be the safest and nicest option – publish but with some revisions required. Deciding to reject outright CAN feel extremely hard to do – although occasionally as a journal editor I encounter a few early career researchers who err on the side of harshness rather than generosity. I have also observed, although I haven’t taken a particularly organised look at this, that it is often the very experienced reviewer who recommends publication without any changes.

So it seems helpful here, in a blog intended to open a conversation with newer reviewers, to think about the basis for the two publication recommendations that are not so comfortable.

On what grounds might we reject an article for publication?

Aside from the obvious things – it’s a rant not a reasoned piece of argument, it’s a piece of journalism, it’s a blog, it’s been sent to the wrong journal , it’s plagiarised – here are some possible reasons for rejection:

(1) It’s straight from a thesis chapter – it’s a trawl of the literature, has far too much to say about methodology and/or theoretical resources, has no argument and no conclusion
(2) It’s bad research – the quants are wrong, the interpretation of the qual data is dodgy, you can drive a truck through the claims made
(3) There is no analysis – it’s a plodding report of a survey or a set of interviews and nothing else
(4) It’s unethical – people may be harmed if this is published, it’s sexist/racist/homophobic
(5) It’s got too many ideas in it – you can’t follow what is being said at all, there isn’t enough space devoted to each part of the argument, the various bits don’t seem to relate to one another
(6) The argument doesn’t make sense – you can’t follow what is being said at all, there isn’t enough space devoted to each part of the argument, the various bits don’t seem to relate to one another
(7) It’s not significant – there is no answer to the So What question. That is, it’s too local, it’s too small in scope to say anything… it’s naracisstic and self-indulgent, and/or the conclusion is what we already know and there are heaps of other articles which say the same thing and/or it doesn’t seem to say anything much at all.

We ought not to reject something because it’s written in a style we don’t like or it uses big words or we disagree with its party politics. We can raise all of these objections as reasoned arguments in a response which might, in the case of party politics, require revision to recognise different points of view.

We also ought not to reject something just because it’s boring. Again, that’s for revision, unless the reasons for it being boring are any of (1) – (7) above.

On what grounds might we recommend publication without changes?

Setting aside envy we can see that:

(1) The paper is very well written, and it’s well structured. It’s a good read. It’s elegant. It might even be pleasurable!!
(2) You can follow the argument, and the way in which it’s been constructed and on what basis. The claims that are made stack up with the data and the analysis.
(3) It says something significant, it offers important new knowledge, it offers a new way to think about/talk about/investigate something, it offers a healthy challenge to the field. You’ve been trying to sort this out and they’ve done it.
(4) Anything you can think of to improve it isn’t really necessary, and it would just be tinkering for the sake of it with something that’s already pretty darn good. (You wish you’d written it/on a good day you could do half as well/you want to give it to others.)

SO…

The thing to do when making a recommendation is to try to focus on the reasons for the decision, not the feelings. After all, it’s the reasoning you have to use to write the feedback.

And for the most common category – revising and resubmitting? I will deal with this in the third and final blog about reviewing; it will be focused on giving feedback to the author and specifying what they need to do, whether this is a few adjustments here and there, or a pretty substantive rewrite.
©

Refereeing a journal article. part 1: reading

So you’ve just got an article to review and you’re not sure how to go about it.

Before even beginning to read, the first thing to get clear about is the STANCE you have to take as a reviewer.

Once you’ve clicked ‘agree to review’ and you have the article in your inbox, you now have to put aside all of those debates about whether blind peer refereeing is a good or a bad thing, or whether it’s here to stay or on the way out. You’ve got the article and you need to do a good job. The author(s) has spent a piece of their life writing it, they have put their faith in the reviewing system – that’s you – and there is probably a lot riding on whether it gets published.

The job of reviewing is about deciding whether the paper is of sufficient quality to be published, not whether it ‘s the most ground-breaking piece of research you’ve ever come across. And you have to read the text, not as if it’s the paper you would have written if you’d done this bit of research, but rather as the research and writing that has been done.

This is reviewing as an appreciative critical stance, rather than one which is dominated by the will to offer a killer critique delivered in the most assertive and acerbic prose possible.

The second thing is to MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST, that is, the article is not obviously written by your best friend or your worst enemy or is about a project that you’ve worked on. If any of these are the case you need to send it back. We do eventually end up reviewing things by people we think we know and this is tricky – we have to try to hold that kind knowledge entirely at bay. We have to treat all papers as if they were written by complete strangers. If we can’t do this, we have to send them back.

The third thing to do is to READ THE ABSTRACT AND THE ARTICLE RIGHT THROUGH ONCE. The goal here is to see what the author(s) is trying to say and to grasp the paper as a whole text.

Next READ THE ABSTRACT AND THE ARTICLE AGAIN asking yourself these TWELVE QUESTIONS – and I’m sure you can think of some others:

(1) Does the paper fit in the journal? Does it address an issue /problem /report on a piece of research which the readers of this journal will find relevant and/or of interest? The answer here is likely to be yes, since Editors usually weed out articles that don’t fit before they send them out, but it’s useful to ask the question.

(2) What is it about the paper that will be of interest to readers of this journal? What existing debates, spaces in the literature, problems or issues does it address? Is it connected to existing and ongoing conversations in the journal and if so how? Does it explicitly refer to other articles in the journal about the same topic? Is this paper of sufficient interest – that is, is it something that is significant enough to warrant publication? What does it offer that is new? ( Of course it might be highly innovative or field changing, but remember it just needs to be new enough and important enough to this readership, not world shattering – and yes, that’s a value judgement and all of this refereeing process is, which is what makes it contentious.) Can you justify your judgment?

(3) Does it establish a clear warrant for its topic within current policy/practice or the field, and if not, is the lack of warrant a problem in this journal – that is, are all articles expected to be explicitly situated in the field of readers’ interest in some way? (The vast majority of journals expect this.)

(4) Does it have a point to make? Does it have one, or at most two, ideas – or is it hard to work out what the point is? Could the point be made clearer, and if so where and how – check the introduction for a statement of intent and the conclusion. Can you summarise the point the article is trying to make in a sentence or two? If you can’t do this, then there is a problem with the article.

(5) Does it refer economically to the key literatures and/or theoretical resources it needs in order to make its case? Or does it offer an inappropriate peacock’s display of reading?

(6) If it is an empirical piece of work, do you know enough about how the research was conducted to trust it? Do you understand the basis on which the writer says they will make claims? Or is it an over-detailed methods treatise?

(7) If it is a theoretical piece, is there sufficient detail about the theory to allow you to follow the way it is used? Is it a set of quotes strung together or is it clear that the writer knows and understands the theory they are using? Is it really just a self-indulgent theor-orgasm?

(8) If it is an empirical piece of work, is this reported in a way that is comprehensible and defensible? Does it go beyond the merely descriptive to offer some kind of interesting analysis? Is there enough evidence to show how the analysis has been made? Does this seem robust and rigorous? If quantitative, are the calculations accurate and sound? If qualitative, do the interpretations seem well justified?

(9) Does the conclusion address the so what question – here is this piece of research I’ve written about – so what? Who cares? What difference does it make to whom and why? Or is the conclusion just a restatement of the article? Or does it introduce new information? (Neither of these last two options cut the mustard as a conclusion.)

(10) Is the abstract a fair representation of the article that you’ve read? Does it tell the reader what is to come? Does the title aptly sum up the essence of the piece? Does it move beyond an advertisement for the article and offer a taster of what is to come? If you found this title online would you want to click on it to go further?

(11) Is the article well written? Is the prose too dense or too naïve? Is it well balanced, that is, it’s not top- or back-heavy /light? Are there enough headings or too many? Are the headings informative – could you understand the argument in the article just from reading these headings? Are the sections in a logical order? Do they flow from one to another or does the reader get lost? Is there some clear signposting for readers to follow, particularly if the argument is complex?

(12) Does the article meet the journal conventions in titling, headings, referencing and word length? Does the English expression need attention? Has the article been carefully proof read?

Now CHECK YOUR BIAS. Do you disagree violently with the article? If so, on what basis? Could you justify publication on the grounds that the article is well written, well-argued and defensibly produced but nevertheless contentious. Consider whether this journal is one which welcomes internal debate. Would this article contribute to that? One of the critiques of peer reviewing is that it supports the status quo – do you think that there is any chance that your judgments do that, and if so, is this OK or could you live with making a more risky judgment?

You now have sufficient information to make a decision about whether the article is publishable, needs revisions and if so to what extent, or should be rejected – and that’s another task and the next blog.

But finally, remember that the reviewing process is CONFIDENTIAL and as much as you might want to, you can’t discuss it with others.
©

Writing a referee report

As an edi­tor, I like to see ref­eree reports com­pris­ing three sections:

A gen­eral sum­mary of the paper and the con­tri­bu­tion it makes. You need to high­light here what is new and inter­est­ing about the paper, as well as give a sum­mary in a few sentences.
The major prob­lems that need address­ing. This is prob­a­bly the most impor­tant sec­tion of your report where you explain the main prob­lems. The edi­tor will read this very care­fully when decid­ing whether to accept, reject or invite a revi­sion, so you need to make sure that any prob­lems are clearly explained here. If you think the paper should be rejected, then you have to make a good case in this sec­ond sec­tion. On the other hand, if you think it is a great paper that deserves pub­li­ca­tion, please explain what is so good about it.
Minor things such as typos or points of clar­i­fi­ca­tion. These are often less impor­tant issues, but need cor­rect­ing before publication.

Some ref­eree reports com­bine sec­tions 2 and 3 and that makes it much harder to fig­ure out what is impor­tant and what are minor com­ments. If the paper is def­i­nitely not worth pub­lish­ing, and you have explained some very seri­ous flaws in sec­tion 2, then it is accept­able not to doc­u­ment the more minor issues. In this case, you should explain to the edi­tor that you have cho­sen not to com­ment on more minor issues as you didn’t think it worthwhile.

Don’t include a rec­om­men­da­tion about whether to pub­lish or not in the report, but add it in your cov­er­ing note to the edi­tor. This is best as the edi­tor will make a deci­sion based on the com­ments from all the ref­er­ees and they may pro­vide con­flict­ing rec­om­men­da­tions. Also, it is awk­ward if all the ref­er­ees rec­om­mend one thing and the edi­tor decides dif­fer­ently. This doesn’t hap­pen very often, but I have some­times made a deci­sion that is con­trary to the advice of all ref­er­ees.
©

Элегия славянского алфавита

Митя Коваленин

(DISCLAIMER: Статья написана для "внешнего" читателя - под перевод на японский в газете "Ёмиури")

Сидим мы как-то с друзьями на берегу реки Синано и жарим мясо. Японцы, американцы и я. И после второй банки пива мой приятель из Сиэттла рассказывает мне байку ― о том, что он думает, когда смотрит на русские буквы:

«Однажды русские монахи Кирилл и Мефодий ехали из Византии, и за ними погнались монголо-татары. Латинские буквы, которые они везли славянам из Римской Империи, в их мешочках перемешались, и никто из них не вспомнил, как все это правильно писать. Так появилась кириллица».

И что мне делать, услышав такое на глазах у японских друзей? Конечно, открыть третью банку пива и разобраться с историей вопроса.

Во-первых, ни монголы, ни татары тогда еще на Русь (древнее название России) не нападали. Да и русские как нация еще не доформировались и состояли из разрозненных славянских племен. И писали они до 9 века, скорее всего, готическими рунами на бересте (как полагают некоторые ученые, хотя доказательств этому почти совсем нет). Что же произошло в 9-м веке?

Да, жили-были два брата-монаха, Кирилл и Мефодий. Но вообще-то они были не русские, а македонцы. Болгары, проще говоря. А с севера надвигались дикие славянские племена. Потому что Греческую цивилизацию уже уничтожили козы и гомосексуализм, а Римская империя провалилась в саму себя, как вулкан, из-за непрерывных экспансий и коррупции. А эти племена разговаривали на никому не понятном южно-славянском наречии. И не хотели изучать ни греческий, ни латинский. Как же их тогда обратить в христианство? ― возник вопрос аж у самого Римского папы.

А на тот момент вся христианская церковь была расколота на два лагеря: противники и сторонники икон. С одной стороны, в Старом Завете Бог сказал Моисею: «Не сотвори себе кумира»; Господь почитался выше любого изображения и воображения. С другой стороны, с арабского мира подпирали соседи-мусульмане, у которых нельзя изображать ничего одушевленного. На юге Европы епископы уничтожали в церквях все иконы, которые, на их взгляд, суеверно почитались прихожанами.

Борьба за и против изображения людей в храмах продолжалась с 6-го по 9-й века. Однако уже к 8-му веку папы начали требовать, чтобы иконы были восстановлены, так как они служат простым людям вместо книги. Ибо практика христианства показывала, что язычники, даже обращенные в христианство, не могут жить без идолов. И этими новыми идолами стали иконы, на которых, кроме изображения, и писались надписи ― поначалу только на греческом, еврейском и латинском языках. И вот наконец в 9 веке братья-монахи Кирилл и Мефодий разработали отдельную азбуку для языков славянских племен. Изучили их речь, отделили гласные от согласных и подобрали всем звукам свои буквы на основе греческого алфавита. И практически всю жизнь посвятили тому, чтобы убедить Западную Церковь, что Бога можно восхвалять «на языке варваров».

Сегодня у нас не хватает знаний, чтобы объяснить, как так вышло, но азбуки получилось две. Глаголица ― для церковных текстов, кириллица ― для бытового письма. Именно глаголицей (глагол = «речь») Кирилл с Мефодием перевели на болгарский язык основные христианские книги. За это их до сих пор почитают у всех славянских народов как святых.

Глаголица выглядела так:

Как можно видеть, эта вязь довольно сложна для написания и запоминания. Неудивительно, что уже к 11 веку основной азбукой славян становится кириллица, обработанная в канон, который стал называться Уставом:

В алфавите кириллицы насчитывается 43 буквы. Из них 24 заимствованы из византийского письма, остальные 19 изобретены заново. Не все заимствованные буквы сохранили обозначение того же звука, что в греческом языке, — некоторые получили новые значения, исходя из особенностей славянской фонетики.

Упрощение продолжалось. Информации становилось все больше, а времени для ее записания ― все меньше. И к 15 веку Устав превращается в Скоропись:

При этом, в отличие от азиатов, славяне почти не пользовались кистью. Для записи своих букв они использовали либо дощечки, либо куриные или гусиные перья. Известно, что в 17 веке Россия была крупнейшим поставщиком гусиных перьев для Англии. Именно гусиными перьями писали Толстой и Достоевский. И когда мы говорим о славянской каллиграфии как искусстве, именно «перьевой танец» представляется прежде всего. Ведь славянская каллиграфия ― это запись звуковых букв, а не картинок-иероглифов. Поэтому изображение здесь плоско-двухмерное, а не кистевое 3D, как в азиатских языках.

Отчасти, и поэтому с появлением книгопечатания (16-й век) искусство каллиграфии в России уходит не в рукописное творчество (как в Китае, Японии или Корее), а в гравюру. Наверно, этому есть и национально-психологическое объяснение. Ведь десять веков подряд Россию постоянно раздирали как междоусобные, так и внешние войны. Нашествия Батыя, атаки шведских и литовских рыцарей, вторжение Наполеона, Порт-Артур, Антанта, Гитлер ― все хотели разорвать эту самую большую страну мира на кусочки, да и сама она так и норовила разорваться, точно граната, изнутри. И во все эти времена Знак служил людям не для медитаций, как в Азии, а для коллективного военного построения. Чем ТВЕРЖЕ была прописана Буква, тем большую работу она совершала для того, чтобы простой русский человек (=солдат, который служил в армии до 25 лет своей жизни) не сошел с ума. Монахи в монастырях переписывали Библию как можно более жестким почерком, который читался однозначно и не вызывал сомнений. А красота Знака достигалась не танцем инструмента, а так называемой «вязью». Вот пример русской Вязи ― так начиналось Евангелие в 16-м веке:

Иначе говоря, славянская каллиграфия ― это скорее коллаж, геометрический лабиринт, нежели «пляска живой кисти». Устав как Закон, который нельзя нарушать...

Что же происходит с русской каллиграфией сегодня? А ничего. С появлением компьютеров буквы оцифровались, и искусство знакописи ― на любом языке ― уходит в прошлое. Сегодня мой 4-хлетний сын не хочет писать буквы, он хочет сразу нажимать кнопки клавиатуры, как мама и папа. Ни на какую Вязь больше нет времени. Спросим себя: когда мы в последний раз писали что-либо рукой дольше 1 минуты?

Так случайно ли на Токийской книжной ярмарке 2011 года более 50% экспонатов были не бумажные книги, а электронные читательские девайсы?

Сегодня, к сожалению, о красоте славянских букв вспоминают мало. На всю Россию существует только один музей каллиграфии в Москве. Он включает в себя экспонаты мусульманской, еврейской и гораздо меньше ― славянской письменности. И когда бродишь по его залам, глядя на потрясающую арабскую вязь или великолепные ручные письмена на иврите, невольно задумываешься. А может, правы были индейцы чилийского племени мапуче, которые обвинили Билла Гейтса в осквернении их культурного наследия, когда очередное программное обеспечение «Виндоуз» было переведено на язык мапуче без их разрешения?

Прощай, Библос. Всех нас прощай.
©

Lamp Type Lumens Output Guide

The typical 60 watt incandescent light bulb gives out about 850 lumens which breaks down to approximately 14 lumens per watt. About 90-95% of the energy is lost in the form of heat and only 5-10% as visible light.
©

Пробуждение

Амнезия (т.е. утрата собственной идентичности), сон, опьянение, оцепенение, плен, падение, тоска по утраченной родине выстраиваются в ряд типично гностических символов и образов, несмотря на то, что придумали их вовсе не учителя-гностики. Обратившись к Материи и желая познать плотские утехи, душа теряет себя. "Она забывает о своей родине, своем подлинном источнике, о своей вечной сущности".
Самый драматический и трогательный образец гностического мифа об амнезии и анамнезе представляет собой "Гимн о Жемчужине", дошедший до нас в Деяниях Фомы. Некий принц приезжает с Востока в Египет на поиски "прекрасной жемчужины, которая укрыта посреди Моря, море обвито змеем, змей издает громкий шип". В Египте его берут в плен местные жители, кормят своей едой, и принц забывает, кто он и что он. "И забыл я, что был царским сыном, и служил я их царю; забыл я о жемчужине, за которой послали родители мои, и под действием пищи их впал я в глубокий сон". Но родители принца узнали о том, что с ним произошло, и послали ему письмо. "Пробудись, восстань ото сна и услышь слова послания нашего. Вспомни, что ты — царский сын. Взгляни, в какое рабство ты впал. Вспомни о жемчужине, ради которой послан был ты в Египет". Письмо прилетело в образе птицы-орла, опустилось на принца и превратилось в слово. "От голоса и от шелеста я пробудился и восстал ото сна. Я подобрал письмо, облобызал, сорвал печать, прочел (…). Вспомнил я, как был сыном царственных родителей (…) Вспомнил я о жемчужине, ради которой послан был я в Египет, и принялся заклинать змея, издававшего громкий шип. Я усыпил его, закляв, затем произнес над ним имя отца своего, унес жемчужину и почел себя должным вернуться в родительский дом".
Вот миф о "Спасенном Спасителе", Salvator salvatus,в наиудачнейшем варианте. Добавим, что для каждого мифологического мотива в различных гностических текстах можно найти свои параллели.
Море и Египет — это общепринятые символы материального мира, в который погружается человеческая пленница-душа и сам призванный освободить ее Спаситель. Нисходя по «небесам», герой совлекает с себя" светоносные ризы" и облачается во «вретище», уподобляясь местным жителям; это "плотяные ризы", тело, в которое он воплощается. В момент вознесения он встречает светоносные ризы, "подобные ему самому", и понимает, что этот «двойник» и есть его подлинное «Я». Встреча с трансцендентным «двойником» напоминает иранскую концепцию небесного образа души, dаena,встречающей покойного на третий день после его смерти (ср. т. 1, § 111, с библиографией). Как отмечает Ионас, открытие этого трансцендентного начала в самом себе составляет главный элемент гностической религии.

Тема амнезии, вызываемой погружением в «Жизнь» (Материю), и анамнеза, достигаемого благодаря поступкам, песнопениям или словам некого «веcтника», встречается также в средневековом индийском фольклоре. Одна из самых известных легенд отображает потерю памяти Машьендранатом. Этот йогин влюбился в одну царицу, поселился в ее дворце, совершенно забыв, кто он такой, или, по другой версии, оказался в плену у женщин "страны Кадали". Узнав о пленении учителя, его ученик Горакнат предстает перед Машьендранатом в образе танцовщицы и начинает плясать, распевая загадочные песни. Постепенно учитель вспоминает, кто он: осознает, что "путь плоти" ведет его к смерти, что его «забытье», по сути, является забвением собственной подлинной бессмертной природы и что "чары Кадали" — не что иное, как мираж профанной жизни. Горакнат объясняет ему, что это богиня Дурга вызвала «забытье», которое чуть не стоило ему бессмертия. Чары эти, добавляет он, означают вечное проклятие неведения, наброшенное «Природой» (т. е. Дургой) на человеческое существование.

Истоки этой фольклорной темы восходят к эпохе упанишад. Можно припомнить аналогию из «Чхандогья-упанишады» (человек, которого похитили злодеи и, завязав ему глаза, увели далеко от родного города) и толкование Шанкары: похитители и повязка на глазах означают неведение и иллюзию, снимающий повязку — это Учитель, открывающий подлинное знание; дом же, в который удалось вернуться пленнику, означает его атмана, подлинное «Я», идентичное Абсолютной Сущности, Брахману (ср. выше, § 136). Санкхья-йога дает аналогичное положение: Я (пуруша) — «посторонний», у него нет ничего общего с Миром (пракрити). Как и для гностиков, Я (Дух, pneuma) — это одинокий, бесстрастный и бездеятельный созерцатель спектакля жизни и истории (ср. § 136 и сл.).

Взаимовлияния, в том или ином смысле, не исключены, но, вероятнее всего, мы имеем дело с параллельными духовными течениями, возникшими в кризисный момент, много веков назад, в Индии (упанишады), в Греции и в Восточном Средиземноморье (орфизм и пифагорейство), в Иране и в эллинистическом мире. Большинство образов и метафор, используемых авторами-гностиками, имеют славную историю и даже предысторию — и очень широко распространены. Один из излюбленных образов — это образ сна, уподобляемый неведению и смерти. Гностики утверждают, что люди не только спят, но и предпочитают спать. "Отчего все вы так любите сон и спотыкаетесь вместе с теми, кто спотыкается?" — спрашивает Ginza.
"Да восстанет спящий от крепкого сна" — написано в Апокалипсисе от Иоанна.
Тот же мотив, как мы увидим, существует в манихействе. Но формулировки его не являются монополией авторов-гностиков. Послание к Ефессянам (5:14) содержит такую анонимную цитату: "Встань, спящий, и воскресни из мертвых и осветит тебя Христос". Поскольку сон (Hypnos) — близнец Танатоса (Смерти), и в Греции, и в Индии, так же, как и у гностиков, слово «будить» имело «сотериологическое» значение в широком смысле слова (Сократ «пробуждает» своих собеседников, подчас против их воли).

Речь идет об архаической и повсеместно распространенной символике. Победа, одержанная над сном, и продолжительное бодрствование представляют собой весьма типичное инициатическое испытание. В некоторых австралийских племенах тем, кому предстоит инициация, либо запрещено спать в течение трех дней, либо, по крайней мере, ложиться до рассвета.
Можно напомнить о печально провалившемся инициатическом испытании знаменитого героя Гильгамеша: он не смог побороть сон и так упустил возможность обрести бессмертие (ср. § 23). В северо-американском мифе, схожем с историей Орфея и Эвридики, одному человеку удалось спуститься в Ад, где он находит свою недавно умершую супругу. Владыка Ада обещает, что даст ему вывести жену обратно на землю, если он сумеет прободрствовать всю ночь. Но, не справившись с этим дважды (даже поспав днем, чтобы не устать), человек не смог прободрствовать до рассвета.
Очевидно, что "не спать" означает не только победу над физической усталостью, но и, прежде всего, доказательство духовной силы. Оставаться «бдящим» быть в полном сознании означает присутствовать в духовном мире. Иисус непрестанно призывает своих учеников бодрствовать (ср., например, Мф 24:42). Гефсиманская ночь обретает трагическую окраску из-за неспособности учеников бодрствовать с Иисусом (ср. § 219).

В гностической литературе неведение и сон в равной степени обозначены термином «опьянение». Евангелие Истины сравнивает того, "кто обладает знанием", с человеком, который, "проснувшись в похмелье, трезвеет, возвращается к самому себе, и снова говорит то, что подлинно свойственно ему".
«Пробуждение» влечет за собой анамнез, обретение заново подлинной сущности души, т. е. узнавание ее небесной природы. "Восстань, светоносная душа, ото сна опьянения, в который впала ты, — написано в одном манихейском тексте. — Иди за мной в место высокое, где и пребывала ты изначально". В традиции мандеев небесный Вестник обращается к Адаму, пробудив его от крепкого сна: "Не спи, не дремли, не забывай о том, что возложил на тебя Господь".

Итак, большая часть этих образов: неведение, амнезия, плен, сон, опьянение, — становятся в гностической проповеди метафорами духовной смерти. Знание дает подлинную жизнь, т. е. спасение и бессмертие.

Мирча Элиаде
История веры и религиозных идей. Том 2. От Гаутамы Будды до триумфа христианства
§ 230. Гностические мифы, образы и метафоры
©

I'd Rather Go Blind

Etta James

Something told me it was over
When I saw you and her talkin'
Something deep down in my soul said, 'Cry, girl'
When I saw you and that girl walkin' around

Whoo, I would rather, I would rather go blind, boy
Then to see you walk away from me, child, no

Whoo, so you see, I love you so much
That I don't wanna watch you leave me, baby
Most of all, I just don't, I just don't wanna be free, no

Whoo, whoo, I was just, I was just, I was just
Sittin here thinkin', of your kiss and your warm embrace, yeah
When the reflection in the glass that I held to my lips now, baby
Revealed the tears that was on my face, yeah

Whoo and baby, baby, I'd rather, I'd rather be blind, boy
Then to see you walk away, see you walk away from me, yeah
Whoo, baby, baby, baby, I'd rather be blind...
©

PM2.5 Concentration in Chinese Provinces Triple the WHO Quota

According to a recently published article in The Economist magazine, the average concentration of PM2.5 pollution in China is 30 micrograms per cubic metre. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization says that an excess of 10 micrograms per cubic metre of PM2.5 pollution is harmful to people. Researches also noted that in many Chinese provinces, PM2.5 concentration vastly exceeds the WHO quota, with Shandong Province and Henan Province being particularly high. The article was published along with a colour-coded map of China, showing the PM2.5 concentration per province compiled from satellite measurements.

From the original article: "Though pollution data are best collected near the ground, a plausible estimate may be made from the vantage-point of a satellite by measuring how much light is blocked by particles, and estimating from those particles’ chemical composition the likely distribution of their sizes. And a report prepared for The Economist by a team led by Angel Hsu of Yale University does just that, drawing on data from American satellites to map out PM2.5 pollution across the entire country."

©

How Long Do Animals Live?

©

Top 200 - The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2010-2011

THE World University Rankings 2010-2011

World Rank	Institution	Country / Region
1	Harvard University	United States
2	California Institute of Technology	United States
3	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	United States
4	Stanford University	United States
5	Princeton University	United States
6	University of Cambridge	United Kingdom
6	University of Oxford	United Kingdom
8	University of California Berkeley	United States
9	Imperial College London	United Kingdom
10	Yale University	United States
11	University of California Los Angeles	United States
12	University of Chicago	United States
13	Johns Hopkins University	United States
14	Cornell University	United States
15	Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich	Switzerland
15	University of Michigan	United States
17	University of Toronto	Canada
18	Columbia University	United States
19	University of Pennsylvania	United States
20	Carnegie Mellon University	United States
21	University of Hong Kong	Hong Kong
22	University College London	United Kingdom
23	University of Washington	United States
24	Duke University	United States
25	Northwestern University	United States
26	University of Tokyo	Japan
27	Georgia Institute of Technology	United States
28	Pohang University of Science and Technology	Republic of Korea
29	University of California Santa Barbara	United States
30	University of British Columbia	Canada
30	University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill	United States
32	University of California San Diego	United States
33	University of Illinois - Urbana	United States
34	National University of Singapore	Singapore
35	McGill University	Canada
36	University of Melbourne	Australia
37	Peking University	China
38	Washington University Saint Louis	United States
39	Ecole Polytechnique	France
40	University of Edinburgh	United Kingdom
41	Hong Kong University of Science and Technology	Hong Kong
42	Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris	France
43	Australian National University	Australia
43	University of Göttingen	Germany
43	Karolinska Institute	Sweden
43	University of Wisconsin	United States
47	Rice University	United States
48	École Polytechnique Federale of Lausanne	Switzerland
49	University of Science and Technology of China	China
49	University of California Irvine	United States
51	Vanderbilt University	United States
52	University of Minnesota	United States
53	Tufts University	United States
54	University of California Davis	United States
55	Brown University	United States
56	University of Massachusetts	United States
57	Kyoto University	Japan
58	Tsinghua University	China
59	Boston University	United States
60	New York University	United States
61	University of Munich	Germany
61	Emory University	United States
63	University of Notre Dame	United States
64	University of Pittsburgh	United States
65	Case Western Reserve University	United States
66	Ohio State University	United States
67	University of Colorado	United States
68	University of Bristol	United Kingdom
68	University of California Santa Cruz	United States
68	Yeshiva University	United States
71	University of Sydney	Australia
72	University of Virginia	United States
73	University of Adelaide	Australia
73	University of Southern California	United States
75	William & Mary	United States
76	Trinity College Dublin	Ireland
77	King's College London	United Kingdom
78	Stony Brook University	United States
79	Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology	Republic of Korea
79	University of Sussex	United Kingdom
81	University of Queensland Australia	Australia
81	University of York	United Kingdom
83	Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg	Germany
83	University of Utah	United States
85	Durham University	United Kingdom
86	London School of Economics and Political Science	United Kingdom
87	University of Manchester	United Kingdom
88	Royal Holloway, University of London	United Kingdom
89	Lund University	Sweden
90	University of Zurich	Switzerland
90	University of Southampton	United Kingdom
90	Wake Forest University	United States
93	McMaster University	Canada
94	University College Dublin	Ireland
95	University of Basel	Switzerland
95	George Washington University	United States
95	University of Arizona	United States
98	University of Maryland College Park	United States
99	Dartmouth College	United States
100	ENS de Lyon	France
101	Technical University of Munich	Germany
102	University of Helsinki	Finland
103	University of St. Andrews	United Kingdom
104	Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute	United States
105	Rutgers the State University of New Jersey	United States
106	Purdue University	United States
107	University of Cape Town	South Africa
107	National Tsing Hua University	Taiwan
109	Seoul National University	Republic of Korea
109	Pennsylvania State University	United States
111	Hong Kong Baptist University	Hong Kong
112	Tokyo Institute of Technology	Japan
112	Bilkent University	Turkey
114	Eindhoven University of Technology	Netherlands
115	National Taiwan University	Taiwan
115	University of Hawaii	United States
117	University of California Riverside	United States
118	University of Geneva	Switzerland
119	Catholic University of Leuven	Belgium
120	Nanjing University	China
120	Queen Mary, University of London	United Kingdom
122	Technical University of Denmark	Denmark
122	Michigan State University	United States
124	Ghent University	Belgium
124	Leiden University	Netherlands
124	Lancaster University	United Kingdom
127	University of Alberta	Canada
128	University of Glasgow	United Kingdom
129	Stockholm University	Sweden
130	University of Victoria	Canada
130	Osaka University	Japan
132	University of Freiburg	Germany
132	Tohoku University	Japan
132	University of Iowa	United States
135	University of Bergen	Norway
136	University of Lausanne	Switzerland
137	University of Sheffield	United Kingdom
138	University of Montreal	Canada
139	VU University Amsterdam	Netherlands
140	Pierre and Marie Curie University	France
140	University of Dundee	United Kingdom
142	University of Barcelona	Spain
143	Utrecht University	Netherlands
144	Wageningen University and Research Center	Netherlands
145	University of Auckland	New Zealand
145	University of Birmingham	United Kingdom
147	Alexandria University	Egypt
147	Uppsala University	Sweden
149	Hong Kong Polytechnic University	Hong Kong
149	University of Aberdeen	United Kingdom
151	Delft University of Technology	Netherlands
152	University of New South Wales	Australia
152	Birkbeck, University of London	United Kingdom
152	Newcastle University	United Kingdom
155	Pompeu Fabra University	Spain
156	Indiana University	United States
156	Iowa State University	United States
158	Medical College of Georgia	United States
159	Erasmus University Rotterdam	Netherlands
159	University of Delaware	United States
161	Arizona State University	United States
161	Boston College	United States
163	National Sun Yat-Sen University	Taiwan
164	Georgetown University	United States
165	University of Amsterdam	Netherlands
165	University of Liverpool	United Kingdom
167	Aarhus University	Denmark
168	University of Würzburg	Germany
168	University of Leeds	United Kingdom
170	University of Groningen	Netherlands
171	Sun Yat-sen University	China
172	Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt am Main	Germany
173	Bielefeld University	Germany
174	Nanyang Technological University	Singapore
174	University of East Anglia	United Kingdom
174	University of Nottingham	United Kingdom
177	University of Copenhagen	Denmark
178	Monash University	Australia
178	Humboldt University of Berlin	Germany
178	University of Bonn	Germany
181	National Chiao Tung University	Taiwan
182	RWTH Aachen University	Germany
183	Middle East Technical University	Turkey
184	University of Exeter	United Kingdom
185	University of Twente	Netherlands
186	University of Konstanz	Germany
187	University of Innsbruck	Austria
187	Karlsruhe Institute of Technology	Germany
189	Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen	Germany
190	Yonsei University	Republic of Korea
190	Drexel University	United States
190	University of Cincinnati	United States
193	Dalhousie University	Canada
193	Royal Institute of Technology	Sweden
195	University of Vienna	Austria
196	Kent State University	United States
197	Zhejiang University	China
197	University of Illinois - Chicago	United States
199	Simon Fraser University	Canada
199	Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences	Sweden

Editor’s note.


A key principle of our revised rankings system in its first year is
that it includes only institutions that have assented to join the
profiling process and have provided and verified the data we sought.


Unfortunately, when the rankings list was published in September 2010, the University of Oslo contacted Times Higher Education
to inform us that, because of an error on its part and an oversight in
the data quality-control process, some of the data it supplied were
incorrect.


A reanalysis of the data by Thomson Reuters has found that Oslo would have been ranked at 186th in the world.


Also, after the launch of the World University Rankings 2010 it
became apparent that, owing to a data processing error, the ranking
positions of two Australian universities in the top 200 list were
incorrect — the University of Adelaide and Monash University.


Both universities remain in the top 1 per cent of world universities.


Thomson Reuters regrets this error and any impact this issue has on the institutions involved as well as on Times Higher Education. Thomson Reuters has taken corrective action to ensure that these errors will not be repeated. Thomson Reuters and Times Higher Education sincerely apologise.


Phil Baty

©