{.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-8087 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“8087” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2013/04/16/what-an-articulated-giraffe-neck-looks-like/giraffe-neck-fmnh-34426-articulated-2/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/giraffe-neck-fmnh-34426-articulated1.jpg” orig-size=“480,2345” comments-opened=“1”
I think the most painful part of the Elsevier-eats-Mendeley deal has been watching good people acting as apologists for Elsevier and then feeling hurt when people don’t accept their protestations. You can see a good example (but far from the only one) in the comments to Danah Boyd’s post on her #mendelete. I don’t know what Elsevier have been feeding their new minions, but whatever it is it seems to be working.
I was really excited to get an invitation to the evolution-or-revolution debate in Oxford, partly for historical reasons. I thought the Oxford Union was where C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien and their friends held various debates. Sadly, it turns out I was mistaken, and it was merely the stomping ground for a bunch of lame politicians.
I mentioned earlier that I was in Oxford yesterday — mostly to participate in the debate at the Oxford Union, “Evolution or Revolution in Science Communication?” I was on the revolution side, with Jason Hoyt (PeerJ), Amelia Andersdotter (Swedish Pirate Party MEP) and Paul Wicks (Patientslikeme). The “evolution” side was represented by David Tempest (Elsevier), Graham Taylor (ex Publishers’ Association), Jason Wilde (Nature) and — rather
Yesterday I was in Oxford for the Rigour and Openness in 21st Century Science conference (web-site here, tweets here though they also include newer ones from Day 2 which is happening as I write this). There was a lot to enjoy about the day, including meeting Cameron Neylon of PLOS and Jason Hoyt of PeerJ, both for the first time.
Is there any justification for any of these practices other than tradition? Choosing titles that deliberately omit new taxon names. Slicing the manuscript to fit an arbitrary length limit. Squeezing the narrative into a fixed set of sections (Introduction, Methods, Results, Conclusion). Discarding or combining illustrations to avoid exceding an arbitrary count. Flattening illustrations to monochrome.
This is a caudal vertebra from the middle of the tail of an ostrich, LACM Bj342: {.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-8259 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“8259” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2013/04/10/crazy-pneumatic-ostrich-caudal/ostrich-caudal-composite-2/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ostrich-caudal-composite1.jpeg” orig-size=“4338,3469” comments-opened=“1”
There’s an awful lot of talk about “predatory open access publishers” recently. So much talk that I can’t help wondering whether the phrase is being pushed by barrier-based publishers in another attempt to smear open access.
As many of you will know, it’s now official that Elsevier has bought Mendeley, previously a force for openness in the world of reference management. There’s some good commentary at The Scholarly Kitchen. Lots of open advocates — Ross Mounce, for example — are shutting down their accounts and moving to free alternatives such as Zotero. Unequivocal good guys at Mendeley, such as William Gunn, are painting this as optimistically as they can.
I first met Wann at SVP in 1997, in Chicago. I was an undergrad, still three months away from my B.S., presenting a poster arguing that OMNH 53062 (which would eventually become the holotype of Sauroposeidon ) was a new sauropod.
{.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-8217 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“8217” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2013/04/08/night-at-the-museum-lacms-camp-dino/lacm-dino-camp-3-mamenchisaurus-and-triceratops-1/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/lacm-dino-camp-3-mamenchisaurus-and-triceratops-1.jpg” orig-size=“2100,1575” comments-opened=“1”