Short post today. Go and read this paper: Academic urban legends (Rekdal 2014). It’s open access, and an easy and fascinating read. It unfolds a tale of good intentions gone wrong, a chain of failure, illustrating an important single crucial point of academic behaviour: read what you cite. References Rekdal, Ole Bjørn.
Regulars will remember that nearly two years ago, I reviewed a paper for the Royal Society’s journal Biology Letters , recommended acceptance with only trivial changes (as did both other reviewers) and was astonished to see that it was rejected outright. There was an invitation to resubmit, with wording that made it clear that the resubmission would be treated as a brand new manuscript;
Recently, I published an old manuscript of mine as a PeerJ Preprint. I wrote this paper in 2003-4, and it was rejected without review when I submitted it back then. (For, I think, specious reasons, but that’s a whole nother discussion. Forget I mentioned it.) I haven’t touched the manuscript since then (except to single-space it for submission as a preprint). It’s ten years old.
{.wp-image-10577 .size-full aria-describedby=“caption-attachment-10577” loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“10577” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2014/07/25/my-scientific-media-diet-the-arborization-of-science-and-the-red-queen/arborization-of-science/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/arborization-of-science.png” orig-size=“900,728” comments-opened=“1”
As recently noted, it was my pleasure and privilege on 25 June to give a talk at the ESOF2014 conference in Copenhagen (the EuroScience Open Forum). My talk was one of four, followed by a panel discussion, in a session on the subject “Should science always be open?”. {.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-10632 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“10632”
{.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-10626 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“10626” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2014/07/16/pelican-vertebrae-are-mostly-air/photo1/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/photo1.jpg” orig-size=“2448,3264” comments-opened=“1” image-meta=“{"aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":""}”
{.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-10618 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“10618” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2014/07/13/sv-pow-showdown-supersaurus-vs-brachiosaurus-and-diplodocus/supersaurus-vs-brachiosaurus-byu-9024-and-fmnh-p25107/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/supersaurus-vs-brachiosaurus-byu-9024-and-fmnh-p25107.jpg” orig-size=“2144,1920” comments-opened=“1”
Today, available for the first time, you can read my 2004 paper A survey of dinosaur diversity by clade, age, place of discovery and year of description . It’s freely available (CC By 4.0) as a PeerJ Preprint. It’s one of those papers that does exactly what it says on the tin — you should be able to find some interesting patterns in the diversity of your own favourite dinosaur group.
This came out two months ago, and I should have blogged about it then, but as usual I am behind. I’m blogging about it now because it deals with a question that has been on my mind for about 10 years now.
Folks, You may know that the inaugral TetZooCon is set to take place next Saturday (12 July) at the London Wetland Centre. It’s an informal convention that’s condensed around occasional SV-POW!sketeer Darren Naish’s absurdly informative blog Tetrapod Zoology, and features a day of talks, a palaeoart workshop and a quiz. At £40 for the day, it’s a bit of a bargain.
