I think it’s fair to say that this “bifurcation heat-map”, from Wedel and Taylor (2013a: figure 9), has been one of the best-received illustrations that we’ve prepared: {.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-8009 attachment-id=“8009” permalink=“http://svpow.com/papers-by-sv-powsketeers/wedel-and-taylor-2013-on-sauropod-neural-spine-bifurcation/wedel-and-taylor-2013-bifurcation-figure-9-bifurcatogram/”

{.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-10013 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“10013” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2014/04/03/photography-and-illustration-talk-part-14-summary-figures-and-the-talk-files/illustration-talk-slide-61/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/illustration-talk-slide-61.jpg” orig-size=“1280,960” comments-opened=“1”

{.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-10004 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“10004” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2014/04/01/photography-and-illustration-talk-part-13-intro-figures/illustration-talk-slide-58/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/illustration-talk-slide-58.jpg” orig-size=“1280,960” comments-opened=“1”

This morning sees the publication of the new Policy for open access in the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework from HEFCE, the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Aitor Ederra drew my attention to this painting by Frederik Spindler: {.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-10055 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“10055” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2014/03/27/frederik-spindlers-wooly-brachiosaur/86e63b799a/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/86e63b799a.jpg” orig-size=“722,542” comments-opened=“1”

A simple picture post, courtesy of John Hutchinson’s tweets [first, second, third]: {.size-full .wp-image-10046 aria-describedby=“caption-attachment-10046” loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“10046” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2014/03/26/rearing-titanosaurs-of-the-egidio-feruglio-museum/bjqaynpcqaixaed/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bjqaynpcqaixaed.jpg” orig-size=“1024,1540” comments-opened=“1”

I just read this on Zen Faulkes’ NeuroDojo blog: How should scientists, and reporters, discuss work that has failed to replicate? The original Barr and colleagues article remains in the scientific literature; failed replication alone is not grounds for retraction.

{.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-9994 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“9994” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2014/03/24/photography-and-illustration-talk-part-12-stereo-and-3d/illustration-talk-slide-51/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/illustration-talk-slide-51.jpg” orig-size=“1280,960” comments-opened=“1”

When Fiona checked her email this morning, she found this note from our next-door neighbour Jenny: What a delightful surprise!

{.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-9956 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“9956” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2014/03/20/photography-and-illustration-talk-part-11-maps-and-territories/illustration-talk-slide-47/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/illustration-talk-slide-47.jpg” orig-size=“1280,960” comments-opened=“1”

In discussion of Samuel Gershman’s rather good piece The Exploitative Economics Of Academic Publishing , I got into this discusson on Twitter with David Mainwaring (who is usually one of the more interesting legacy-publisher representatives on these issues) and Daniel Allingon (who I don’t know at all). I’ll need to give a bit of background before I reach the key part of that discussion, so here goes.