Subscribe by email
Join 885 other subscribersMeta
Category Archives: science publishing
A statement on p-values that approaches significance*
Point-oh-five. It’s a pretty polarizing number. Sitting on either side of it could mean the difference between a [insert your favorite journal here] paper and an unpublished paper. But why do some researchers, reviewers, and journal editors put so much weight on this highly … Continue reading
Introducing The Fourth Reviewer
Tim Vines is an evolutionary ecologist who found his calling in the process of peer review. He was Managing Editor of Molecular Ecology from 2008 to 2015, launched The Molecular Ecologist in 2010, and is now the founder and Managing … Continue reading
Posted in community, peer review, science publishing, The Fourth Reviewer
2 Comments
The Tao of open science for ecology
I think we can all agree that science needs to be transparent, shared, and reproducible. Recently, however, the discussion about “open science” has been conducted mostly in online forums and less so in publications (hopefully Open Access ones!). This is … Continue reading
To review or not to review, that is the question
Imagine this scenario. You are industriously working away on your most recent paper (ignoring other pressing data analyses, administrative duties, and grant proposals). You have just begun to get into the zone of intense focus, writing nirvana, when DING!!! a … Continue reading
Posted in career, peer review, science publishing
3 Comments
The death of the p-value? Probably not.
In February, a social psychology journal, Basic and Applied Social Psychology , made the bold (and extreme) move to ban the use of p-values, F-statistics, T-values, and any other form of Null Hypothesis Testing (NHT) method. This major move generated … Continue reading
Posted in methods, politics, science publishing
Tagged null hypothesis testing, p-value, statistics
3 Comments
Molecular Ecology's best reviewers 2015
(Flickr: Kathrin & Stefan Marks) As a continuation of our post from last year, Molecular Ecology is publishing a list of our very best referees from the last two years (2013 and 2014). Our hope is that the people listed … Continue reading
The results are in for the journal selection survey
Two weeks ago I wrote a post about a recent paper by Salinas and Munch that presented a model-based method for determining to which journal an author should submit a manuscript for publication. I was curious to know how the readers … Continue reading
Posted in career, Impact Factors, methods, peer review, science publishing
2 Comments
Harry Smith, the founder of Molecular Ecology, has died
We’ve received word that Harry Smith, the founder of Molecular Ecology, passed away yesterday. Smith had a prolific and well-regarded career studying the molecular basis of plants’ responses to their environments. In particular, he helped to demonstrate how plants perceive … Continue reading
Posted in community, Molecular Ecology, the journal, science publishing
Tagged Harry Smith, in memoriam
Leave a comment
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?*
[We want to know what you think! Please click on the link at the bottom of the post to complete a short survey and/or share your thoughts about the publishing process in the comments section below] For better or worse, … Continue reading
Posted in career, funding, Impact Factors, peer review, science publishing
1 Comment
Why is science publishing so damn expensive?
I read this article today. It kicks off with a familiar complaint about the cost of journal subscriptions: Taxpayers fund a lot of the science that gets done, academics (many of whom are also funded by public money) peer review it … Continue reading
Posted in peer review, science publishing
10 Comments