Category Archives: peer review

Why we sign our peer reviews

Last week I posted the results from a brief survey of our readers, asking whether they usually sign their peer reviews. In that small sample of evolutionary ecologists, the overwhelming majority said they review anonymously, though many participants seem to … Continue reading

RedditDiggMendeleyPocketShare
Posted in career, community, peer review, science publishing | 4 Comments

Why we don’t sign our peer reviews

Last week I posted the results from a brief survey of our readers, asking whether they usually sign their peer reviews. In that small sample of evolutionary ecologists, the overwhelming majority said they review anonymously, though many participants seem to … Continue reading

RedditDiggMendeleyPocketShare
Posted in career, community, peer review, science publishing | 1 Comment

Do we sign our peer reviews? Mostly, no.

Last week, inspired by discussions with my co-bloggers and a post by Terry McGlynn, I asked our readers to tell me whether they do peer review anonymously, and why. A total of 87 folks responded to a brief online survey, … Continue reading

RedditDiggMendeleyPocketShare
Posted in community, peer review, science publishing | 7 Comments

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

RedditDiggMendeleyPocketShare
Posted in peer review, science publishing | 1 Comment

#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

RedditDiggMendeleyPocketShare
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

RedditDiggMendeleyPocketShare
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

RedditDiggMendeleyPocketShare
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

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

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

RedditDiggMendeleyPocketShare
Posted in peer review | Leave a 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

RedditDiggMendeleyPocketShare
Posted in peer review | 11 Comments