Category Archives: science publishing

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

RedditDiggMendeleyPocketShare and Enjoy
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 , , | 2 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

Posted in housekeeping, Molecular Ecology, the journal, peer review, science publishing | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

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 , | 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

LaTeX hacks to save your life (and your co-authors’)

In light of this recent study by Knauff and Nejasmic (2014) that makes a lot of presumptive leaps on the utility and effectiveness of in scientific writing, my case for the utility of for every equation, reference, table, figure, and … Continue reading

Posted in howto, science publishing | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

The big chief at Molecular Ecology Resources: Interviewing Shawn Narum

What are the most exciting parts of doing science? The first look at results? The sheen of your publication finally in print? That initial foray out into the field? What about the moment you figure out a way to make a … Continue reading

Posted in interview, methods, Molecular Ecology views, science publishing | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

They’ll let anything through peer review these days

… where “they” are the hordes of bogus pay-to-publish journals that seem to be spamming every .edu email address (especially those connected to corresponding authors in real journals) with invitations to submit. Submission spam from the International Journal of Advanced … Continue reading

Posted in peer review, science publishing | Leave a comment