Get the latest updates
Category Archives: science publishing
I think we’re NOT alone now
Finding new and engaging ways to communicate science is of paramount importance. But, how many opportunities are there to practice the art of communication? When can we try out different methods of distilling science? It seems that these chances are … Continue reading
Posted in blogging, career, community, interview, science publishing
Tagged career, Friends of Joe's Big Idea, networking, scicomm, Science Communication, students
4 Comments
An Update on the Great BAMM Controversy
Update, 01 August 2016, 2:50PM. This post has been updated to include information contained in the supplemental material of Rabosky et al. 2017, and clarify the difference between branch-specific and tree-wide rate variation. Back in August, I summarized the main … Continue reading
Posted in blogging, evolution, methods, phylogenetics, science publishing, software, speciation
Tagged BAMM, diversification, extinction, macroevolution
Leave a comment
The Fourth Reviewer: Pre-print reviews, parental monikers, and points for student participation
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 he’s now the founder and Managing Editor of Axios Review. Here, Tim … Continue reading
Posted in community, peer review, science publishing, The Fourth Reviewer
Tagged diction, grad school, pre-print servers
Leave a comment
The Fourth Reviewer: What problem is open peer review trying to solve?
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 the founder and Managing Editor of Axios Review. Here, Tim is … Continue reading
Posted in community, peer review, science publishing, The Fourth Reviewer
Tagged open peer review
5 Comments
The Fourth Reviewer: More suggestions about suggesting reviewers
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 the founder and Managing Editor … Continue reading
The Fourth Reviewer: Help! A reviewer just contacted me directly.
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
Posted in community, peer review, science publishing, The Fourth Reviewer
2 Comments
A statement on p-values that approaches significance*
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
Introducing The Fourth Reviewer
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
Posted in community, peer review, science publishing, The Fourth Reviewer
2 Comments
The Tao of open science for ecology
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
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
Posted in career, peer review, science publishing
3 Comments