tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.comments2024-01-10T04:54:12.385-06:00From the Editor’s Desk of <br><i>The American Naturalist</i>ASNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03125199518930102046noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-4311557968205979772020-09-12T22:51:40.969-05:002020-09-12T22:51:40.969-05:00I appreciate your very thoughtful comment. My expe...I appreciate your very thoughtful comment. My experience and those I have heard from others (e.g. https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/22/tortuous-and-torturous-why-publishing-a-critical-letter-to-the-editor-is-so-difficult/), makes me more skeptical. However, it is good to get the inside perspective from an editor to remind us of the complexities of dealing with these issues. Dan Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17346683956118701017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-53137320503394875992020-09-07T07:31:36.650-05:002020-09-07T07:31:36.650-05:00I would add that PUBPEER should put some pressure ...I would add that PUBPEER should put some pressure on the author to answer the comments if they concern something potentially important. Wojciech Pisulahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16384248167417014648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-13446413432321359512020-09-04T16:09:39.332-05:002020-09-04T16:09:39.332-05:00You wrote "Authors can ignore PubPeer comment... You wrote "Authors can ignore PubPeer comments because...they can." DO you mean that their careers are not hurt by ignoring the critiques? This would contradict one of your concerns about PubPeer! <br /> You also wrote "The poster (Boris Barbour) also notes that most PubPeer comments are not graced with author defenses or acknowledgement. If correct (no statistics were offered in support), that is troubling." If you don't know that this is true, it suggests you don't know much about PubPeer. It is easy to see that Boris Barbour's comment is largely correct.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13698454879978404947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-37724033755097571522020-09-01T13:00:55.135-05:002020-09-01T13:00:55.135-05:00Support. The last time we did the statistics (end ...Support. The last time we did the statistics (end 2019), 4% of entries on PubPeer had author replies. That number is going up though, to 9% over the preceding year. Many of those responses are obviously unsatisfactory. However, well-known, active authors do now seem to find it harder to resist some kind of response to serious issues.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13571146233830088355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-40504912136539934692020-06-29T15:57:41.116-05:002020-06-29T15:57:41.116-05:00There is absolutely a demand for review papers, bu...There is absolutely a demand for review papers, but it is important to acknowledge the articles that present the original empirical research. I've been involved with several meta-analyses, and while they are important research it has always bothered me a bit that I couldn't include data from primary manuscripts in the main document citations. While it's not a huge issue if your meta-analysis is small, when you start analyzing data from 50+ papers it becomes very cumbersome. As someone who loves doing meta-analyses, I am very supportive of including citations of all original research articles that data is obtained from in the main manuscript, with the obvious caveat that these types of citations shouldn't count towards manuscript word limits - the original authors deserve due credit!<br /><br />Given that citations can be (a very poor form of) currency in academia, this is a good way to help ensure the original manuscripts are cited and the authors get due credit. I hope other journals follow suit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-60157551527905159722020-03-20T12:24:54.368-05:002020-03-20T12:24:54.368-05:00Dear Dan,
This is excellent, thank you! I think ...Dear Dan,<br /><br />This is excellent, thank you! I think that all journals, reviewers and authors should follow these norms closely. It is a great way to support academia and the academic community. <br /><br />For those reviewers and editors that can continue working, we should find ways to express our comments and decisions in the most sympathetic way possible. While this is always important, this is ever more critical during this period. <br /><br />Mentors should also attempt to provide much additional emotional support to their groups, particularly facing manuscript reviews and decisions.<br /><br />I've communicated the issue of writing decision letters yesterday with many senior editors, and we all converged to the same philosophy. We will be paying additional and much stronger attention to the way we voice and portray decisions. <br /><br />Thanks again!<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />Pedro<br /><br />Pedro R. Peres-Neto<br />Concordia University<br />Pedro R. Peres-Netohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10984365898026530616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-28997788024677419042017-12-01T10:29:07.042-06:002017-12-01T10:29:07.042-06:00That's a fair point, but the difference is tha...That's a fair point, but the difference is that a human genome sequence can, with some analyses, be traced back to the individual who participated in a study, or at least to their family. That is, if any of your close relatives took a 23&me test or an Ancestry.com test (for example), then your genome sequence published with a study could be compared to databases to identify at least to family who was in a study. In the future that might impact individuals' insurability, etc. So I am told by human genetics folks (I am married to one) that some IRBs and some social communities place moratoriums on the kind of data sharing that we are used to. A researcher who shares data in the way we normally expect, might find a tribal group subsequently stops cooperating with them. So there are genuine barriers here, and some geneticists do find this to be a deal-breaker for these reasons. It is more than an excuse.Dan Bolnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05181664810897127126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-73277229415313493262017-12-01T06:48:32.748-06:002017-12-01T06:48:32.748-06:00many psychology journals require data deposition d...many psychology journals require data deposition despite routinely dealing with human data and privacy issues. There are solutions for that. So it really seems odd that an ecology and evolution journal would use that as an excuse to not be more committed to data sharing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-9796863661594990692017-11-29T08:22:15.521-06:002017-11-29T08:22:15.521-06:00Helpful post.Helpful post.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07553094122435583373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-74217953436346228622017-09-21T16:06:13.515-05:002017-09-21T16:06:13.515-05:00But people don't want to *read* review papers,...But people don't want to *read* review papers, they just want to use them as a citation to support sentences they already wrote without a specific study in mind. If you cite an original research paper to support your statement you (usually) have to actually know exactly what's in the article. Cite a review about the general area covered in your statement and you can be confident something in there will be relevant, so you don't actually have to read past the abstract. We all do it. Good for American Naturalist for publishing actual, y'know, research. Zorro91https://www.blogger.com/profile/08458296708426738231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-6056126977686514272017-09-06T15:41:54.190-05:002017-09-06T15:41:54.190-05:00I say publish more review papers. If there is a de...I say publish more review papers. If there is a demand, fulfill the supply rather than taking such an elitist approach.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-58691317827586585112017-03-07T16:47:21.407-06:002017-03-07T16:47:21.407-06:00The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Po...The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations.<br />J. G. Kingsolver, H. E. Hoekstra, J. M. Hoekstra, D. Berrigan, S. N. Vignieri, C. E. Hill, A. Hoang, P. Gibert, and P. Beerli<br />http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/319193<br /><br />The Ecology of Individuals: Incidence and Implications of Individual Specialization.<br />Daniel I. Bolnick, Richard Svanbäck, James A. Fordyce, Louie H. Yang, Jeremy M. Davis, C. Darrin Hulsey, Matthew L. Forister<br />http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/343878<br />Stephanie Carlsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-41112605796806804992015-11-01T07:48:41.517-06:002015-11-01T07:48:41.517-06:00greatgreatHakimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-66312144389830279462013-12-08T06:23:23.569-06:002013-12-08T06:23:23.569-06:00Nice post! A while back I wrote one describing how...Nice post! A while back I wrote one describing how we do things at Biotropica; I thought it might make for an interesting comparison. http://biotropica.org/time-to-decision/. I wish more journals would do this, thanks very much.<br />Emilio Brunahttp://biotropica.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-55223884917363186842013-12-07T14:22:44.648-06:002013-12-07T14:22:44.648-06:00By the way our stats are published every year in t...By the way our stats are published every year in the December issue as part of the ASN Secretary's report, so they are always part of the public record. Our average time to first decision is 46 days, but that's for all submissions. Trish https://www.blogger.com/profile/16821726769230478329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6418000394750538816.post-70518843217589639572013-12-07T10:16:35.414-06:002013-12-07T10:16:35.414-06:00(hi Trish!)
thansk for this, it's great! As a...(hi Trish!)<br /><br />thansk for this, it's great! As an author/reviewer I am familiar with the middle steps, but had only a vague idea of the ones before and after that. It is a lot more nuanced and piecewise than I (naively) imagined, so I really appreciate you taking the time to share this! Cheers!Rafael Maiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395303011366399867noreply@blogger.com