Category Archives: science publishing

The Fourth Reviewer: Help! A reviewer just contacted me directly.

Posted on 29 March, 2016 by Jeremy Yoder

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, he launched The Molecular Ecologist in 2010, and he’s the founder and Managing … Continue reading →

Share
Posted in community, peer review, science publishing, The Fourth Reviewer | 2 Comments

A statement on p-values that approaches significance*

Posted on 8 March, 2016 by Noah Snyder-Mackler

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 Sitting on either side of it could mean the difference between a [insert your favorite journal here] paper and an unpublished paper.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 →

Share
Posted in methods, science publishing | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Introducing The Fourth Reviewer

Posted on 8 March, 2016 by Jeremy Yoder

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 →

Share
Posted in community, peer review, science publishing, The Fourth Reviewer | 1 Comment

The Tao of open science for ecology

Posted on 28 July, 2015 by Noah Snyder-Mackler

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 →

Share
Posted in science publishing, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

To review or not to review, that is the question

Posted on 6 May, 2015 by Mark Christie

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 →

Share
Posted in career, peer review, science publishing | 3 Comments

The death of the p-value? Probably not.

Posted on 5 May, 2015 by Noah Snyder-Mackler

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 →

Share
Posted in methods, politics, science publishing | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Molecular Ecology’s best reviewers 2015

Posted on 7 April, 2015 by Tim Vines

(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 →

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

The results are in for the journal selection survey

Posted on 16 February, 2015 by Melissa DeBiasse

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 →

Share
Posted in career, Impact Factors, methods, peer review, science publishing | 2 Comments

Harry Smith, the founder of Molecular Ecology, has died

Posted on 10 February, 2015 by Jeremy Yoder

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 →

Share
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?*

Posted on 2 February, 2015 by Melissa DeBiasse

[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 →

Share
Posted in career, funding, Impact Factors, peer review, science publishing | 1 Comment