Category Archives: science publishing

Do you sign your peer reviews?

Update: The survey is now closed! Thanks to everyone who participated—I’ll post the results soon. Yesterday John Stanton-Geddes e-mailed me and Tim Vines to ask about writing a post, or a series of posts, on the question of whether or … Continue reading

Posted in peer review, science publishing | 1 Comment

People behind the Science: Dr. Ruth Shaw

In the second interview for the Molecular Ecologist, we feature Dr. Ruth Shaw from the University of Minnesota (full disclosure, Dr. Shaw was my PhD adviser). Dr. Shaw is currently the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Evolution. In her research, she studies the … Continue reading

Posted in interview, peer review | Tagged | 2 Comments

#Evol2013: Home from Snowbird

On balance, Snowbird, Utah was a pretty great place to hang out with a whole bunch of biologists for five days. This was my sixth Evolution meeting, and I think it was the first one where I’d just about entirely … Continue reading

Posted in career, conferences, peer review, science publishing | Tagged | Leave a comment

2012 Impact Factors – Mol Ecol does well, ME Resources blows the roof off

When ME Resources switched to publishing Primer Notes in a summary article back in 2009, I had a strong hunch that our 2012 Impact Factor could go up quite a bit – this is the first year that the IF … Continue reading

Posted in Impact Factors, Molecular Ecology, the journal, peer review, science publishing | 2 Comments

Well, at least we've got the President on our side

Follow-up about yesterday’s fretting about Congresspeople wanting to interfere with peer review at the National Science Foundation: President Obama was asked about this yesterday at an event celebrating the 150th anniversary of the National Academy of Sciences—and he looks to … Continue reading

Posted in peer review, politics, United States | Tagged | 1 Comment

A tale of two Dryad submissions

As it happens, the last two scientific papers I’ve had accepted for publication are also the first two papers for which my first-authorial duties included some substantial journal-mandated archiving of supporting data (beyond uploading a handful of DNA sequences to … Continue reading

Posted in data archiving, peer review | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments

Mol Ecol's best reviewers

A healthy peer review system is essential for the integrity of science, but the anonymity of the process means that good reviewers seldom get recognition from the broader community. This is particularly a problem for junior researchers trying to get … Continue reading

Posted in community, science publishing | Tagged | 6 Comments

Best Practices for Scientific Computing…And Molecular Ecology?

Source: http://xkcd.com/292 *Update* Best Practices in Computing has now been published in PLoS Biology! Computers and computational techniques have significantly advanced the molecular ecologist’s toolbox for answering interesting and complex questions about a range of biological systems,  model or otherwise. Imagine, … Continue reading

Posted in bioinformatics, data archiving, population genetics, science publishing, software | Tagged | 1 Comment

Let's push things forward

We at Molecular Ecology think archiving data at publication is really important, chiefly because it means that all these amazing datasets are preserved for future generations of researchers. Who knows what questions they’ll be asking fifty years from now? (That, … Continue reading

Posted in data archiving, science publishing | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Do famous researchers have biased perceptions of peer review?

I thought some of you would be interested in this: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/02/01/the-famous-grouse-do-prominent-scientists-have-biased-perceptions-of-peer-review/…

Posted in career, community, science publishing | Leave a comment