Subscribe by email
Join 884 other subscribersMeta
Category Archives: science publishing
When should you make a complaint?
I’m writing this post with some trepidation, as dealing with complaints is the most difficult part of being an editor. However, I think there is much to be gained from bringing some clarity to the process and by giving a … Continue reading
Posted in peer review
Leave a comment
Some overdue thoughts on impact factors
OK, I know this is late (they were released in July!), but the recent editorial board meeting in Tübingen forced me to put the vague thoughts I had about the 2010 impact factors into actual words and pictures: Molecular Ecology … Continue reading
Posted in science publishing
3 Comments
Data archiving guide
I put together a short guide that goes through the different data types commonly used in Molecular Ecology and suggests the type of file that ought to be archived to fulfil our Joint Data Archiving Policy. It’s available here. Comments … Continue reading
Posted in methods, science publishing
Leave a comment
The Lost Art of the Response to Reviewers
OK- this is slightly tongue in cheek, but all this stems from things I’ve seen coming in to MEC. We all do our best to make sure that we evaluate papers from an objective standpoint, but sometimes the response to … Continue reading
Posted in science publishing
8 Comments
Data archiving and the JDAP
The new year is here, and one of the biggest changes it will bring is the implementation of the Joint Data Archiving Policy by a number of ecology and evolution journals. These include Molecular Ecology (and ME Resources), Evolution, American … Continue reading
Posted in science publishing
1 Comment
Funny referee quotes
In the spirit of Tim’s last post about rapid publication and review, I found a link to a journal, Environmental Microbiology, that publishes some of their favourite referee comments. Below is a smattering of some of the more humorous ones. … Continue reading
Posted in peer review
11 Comments
Rapid Publication
Another day, another journal launch that promises “rapid review and publication of high-quality foundational research”. It strikes me that most journals in ecology/evolution now have an average time from submission to first decision of 30-50 days, which is so much … Continue reading
Posted in peer review
2 Comments
Comment articles
It’s never happened as yet, but I was wondering what my response would be if someone wanted to write a Comment article about a Mol Ecol paper, but wanted to remain anonymous. The logistics would be quite easy, but the … Continue reading
Posted in community, peer review
2 Comments
Is peer review broken?
There’s been quite a bit of recent criticism of the peer review process, notably in The Scientist and by Michael Hochberg in his editorial ‘The tragedy of the reviewer commons‘ in Ecology Letters. As someone who sees thousands of decisions … Continue reading