Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[Wayne Tyson]

"Consider the source!" That's what my grandma used to counsel when I whined 
about gossip and unfounded criticism. But it seems to me that reviews should 
be considered part of the paper. Largely because of its transparency and 
directness, I value Ecolog more than tedious, pretentious papers as a source 
of good bottom-line thinking on ecology.


And open criticism is the other; at Ecolog, you get lots of feedback when 
you err, and that is the most welcomest contribution of all. I sometimes get 
some "interesting" comments via off-list email too, which, if I want to post 
so the rest of you are aware of it, I must get the contributor's permission 
to post my rebuttal along with the off-list review. This, of course, never 
happens, because those who expose themselves in rude ways want to confine 
their flashing to their victims. I suspect that this practice of off-list 
sniping (to put it politely) is not limited to me, so we "Ecologgers" are 
being deprived of some pretty creative comment. My own policy is to nearly 
always post to the list (except when I figure it might not get past David 
for some good reason), and to always expect that the recipient of the email 
has every right to post the review and rebuttal onto Ecolog. I do fully 
understand that such posts put David on the spot, as he doesn't want "flame 
wars" on Ecolog, but, then, as grandma said, we should be able to "consider 
the source." Anyone has my permission to publish anything I send them that 
is in the slightest of relevance to ecology or otherwise of interest to 
Ecolog subscribers.


Where I grew up, rudeness was often rewarded by a punch in the nose. Punches 
were rare, and people were polite but frank. Courtesy was a social 
institution. I miss the plain-speaking evenness of those people. Perpetual 
archival of pixel petulance on Ecolog might keep the discourse even more 
civil and certainly more informative than it is. I suspect that published, 
signed reviews would similarly shape-up the quality of the academic 
discourse much as it did the social discourse of my boyhood.


As the beer ad says in England, "Take Courage!"

WT

- Original Message - 
From: "Jonathan Greenberg" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?


Wow, I clearly hit on a painful topic here!  I've been getting asked
on-list and off- to clarify, a bit, why I might want to do what my
original question was about: make the reviews (but not the identity of
the reviewers) I've received of my OWN papers public to other people.
I would hazard to guess 99% of us have had a least one paper rejected
due to a reviewer who did a less-than-stellar job at reviewing a paper
-- whether laziness, unfamiliarity with the subject matter, politics,
competition on a subject that the reviewer may be trying to get
published themself, etc (how often have you thought "Did this person
even read my paper?").  There don't seem to be a lot of forums out
there to shed light on "good reviews" vs. "bad reviews" -- we receive
them, we complain to our co-authors and other people we are close to,
but, as my OP indicated, I wanted to know if we could turn around and
show the world these types of reviews in an attempt, not as revenge
(since the reviewer remains anonymous), but to let people know these
types of reviews are unhelpful and can really damage the scientific
process, hopefully to get across to the people producing these bad
reviews they need to think about how they treat their role in the
peer-review process, and to teach new reviewers how to write good
reviews.

I want to clarify a point: I don't mean that a "bad review" is one in
which your paper is rejected, a "bad review" I define a bad review as
one that does little to help improve a paper that may have potential.

--j


On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Murray Efford
 wrote:
James Crants has it right. I recently wrote a harsh review of a poor paper 
by a high-profile author, pointing out numerical and conceptual errors and 
disregard of the literature. I did what I thought was the decent thing and 
signed the review. The paper was published with a less-than-gracious 
acknowledgment of my contribution. This should not have got past the 
editors, but it did, and I will not sign reviews for them again. Anonymity 
serves to depersonalise the review process and dilute the pernicious 
effects of status and reputation.


Murray Efford


From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants [jcra...@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 5:39 a.m.
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

On the other hand, if the reviewers are anonymous, the authors should be,
too. I think transparency is a bad thing, in this case; I think reviews
should be double-blind.

While reviewer anonymity allows reviewers to be impolite and harsh, it 
also
protects them from

[ECOLOG-L] 2 Visiting Teaching Associate Positions- Biology Dept, Skidmore College

[Joshua Ness]

The Department of Biology at Skidmore College invites applications for two 
Visiting 
Teaching Associate positions.  One position is for spring 2011, the other for 
the full 2010- 
2011 academic year, with a possibility of renewal. For both positions, a 
master's degree 
in Biology or a related field, teaching experience, and a strong background in 
ecology, 
botany or organismal biology are required. Throughout the semester, teaching 
associates 
are expected to assist in the design, preparation, and teaching of laboratories 
and to 
participate in student grading in the department's writing intensive, 
introductory 
courses.   
 
Screening will begin immediately and continue until appointments are made for 
both 
positions.  
 
To learn more about and apply for these positions, please visit Skidmore’s 
website at:   
jobs.skidmore.edu/applicants/Central?quickFind=51872 
 


Joshua Ness
Assistant Professor
Dept of Biology and Environmental Studies Program
Skidmore College
815 North Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-580-5080
http://www.skidmore.edu/academics/biology/jness.htm

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[William Silvert]

An important point in Murray's post is that often big names get published no 
matter what the reviewer says. This is especially common in conference 
proceedings, where the famous are invited and often give condescending talks 
that always get published no matter how crappy they are.


Bill Silvert

- Original Message - 
From: "Murray Efford" 

To: 
Sent: terça-feira, 2 de Março de 2010 20:02
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?


James Crants has it right. I recently wrote a harsh review of a poor paper 
by a high-profile author, pointing out numerical and conceptual errors and 
disregard of the literature. I did what I thought was the decent thing and 
signed the review. The paper was published with a less-than-gracious 
acknowledgment of my contribution. This should not have got past the 
editors, but it did, and I will not sign reviews for them again. Anonymity 
serves to depersonalise the review process and dilute the pernicious 
effects of status and reputation.


Murray Efford 

[ECOLOG-L] Graduate Research Opportunity: Ph.D. Assistantship in Arctic Plankton Ecology

[Peter Lavrentyev]

A Ph.D. research assistantship with a full tuition waiver is available for 
a motivated graduate student interested in pursuing a doctoral degree in 
polar marine ecology. The successful candidate will join an NSF-funded 
research team focused on investigating the impacts of ice conditions and 
climate change on pelagic food webs in the Arctic. Specifically, this 
project will examine the composition and distribution of microzooplankton 
and their trophic interactions with phytoplankton and copepods. Lab work 
including flow-cytometry and molecular techniques will be conducted at the 
University of Akron, OH (www.uakron.edu/biology) and the University of 
Tromsø in Norway (http://www2.uit.no). The doctoral student will also take 
part in the oceanographic cruises aboard the IMR (http://www.imr.no) 
research vessels in the Barents Sea. The applicant must meet the 
University of Akron admission requirements and have an undergraduate 
degree in Oceanography or Biology from an accredited institution. 
Applicants must submit their GRE scores, three letters of recommendation, 
a and statement of career goals and research interests. Review of 
applications will begin immediately and continue until the position is 
filled. Prior to applying please contact Dr. Peter Lavrentyev via e-mail 
(pet...@uakron.edu) for further information.

[ECOLOG-L] Post-Doctoral Associate - Arctic Plankton Ecology

[Peter Lavrentyev]

A postdoctoral position is available starting March 1, 2010 as part of an 
NSF-funded project investigating the impacts of ice conditions and climate 
change on the microbial food web. Specifically, the project will examine 
the composition and distribution of microzooplankton and their trophic 
interactions with phytoplankton and mesozooplankton in different 
hydrographic regions of the Barents Sea (the Atlantic water, Polar Front, 
marginal ice zone, etc). 

We are looking for a motivated researcher with experience in 
microzooplankton or copepod ecology. Prior training in flow-cytometry 
and/or molecular techniques is desirable, but not required.
Candidates must have a Ph.D. in oceanography, aquatic ecology, or a 
related field at the time of appointment and be able to work at sea. The 
position will be based at the University of Akron, but the postdoc will 
also work closely with the polar researchers from the University of 
Tromsø, Norway. The initial appointment is for 1-year with re-appointments 
of up to 2 subsequent years possible, contingent on performance. Salary 
will be commensurate with experience. 

To apply please send a cover letter outlining research experience and 
interests, a curriculum vitae and the names/contacts of 3 professional 
references to Peter Lavrentyev (pet...@uakron.edu). Review of applications 
will begin immediately and continue until the position is filled. For 
further information e-mail or call (330)-972-7922.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[malcolm McCallum]

As an editor of a journal I have been surprised to find only a single time
in five years that a review was possibly unfair,
and that one was unfairly positive.  It has been refreshing to find that
most people review manuscripts objectively despite
personal disgruntlements with individuals or disagreements with selected
methodology.  They tend to be fair.

Occasionally, a reviewer is unnecessarily insulting or gruff.I
personally believe this is uncalled for.

People worry too much about reviewers.

Malcolm

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Jonathan Greenberg wrote:

> Wow, I clearly hit on a painful topic here!  I've been getting asked
> on-list and off- to clarify, a bit, why I might want to do what my
> original question was about: make the reviews (but not the identity of
> the reviewers) I've received of my OWN papers public to other people.
> I would hazard to guess 99% of us have had a least one paper rejected
> due to a reviewer who did a less-than-stellar job at reviewing a paper
> -- whether laziness, unfamiliarity with the subject matter, politics,
> competition on a subject that the reviewer may be trying to get
> published themself, etc (how often have you thought "Did this person
> even read my paper?").  There don't seem to be a lot of forums out
> there to shed light on "good reviews" vs. "bad reviews" -- we receive
> them, we complain to our co-authors and other people we are close to,
> but, as my OP indicated, I wanted to know if we could turn around and
> show the world these types of reviews in an attempt, not as revenge
> (since the reviewer remains anonymous), but to let people know these
> types of reviews are unhelpful and can really damage the scientific
> process, hopefully to get across to the people producing these bad
> reviews they need to think about how they treat their role in the
> peer-review process, and to teach new reviewers how to write good
> reviews.
>
> I want to clarify a point: I don't mean that a "bad review" is one in
> which your paper is rejected, a "bad review" I define a bad review as
> one that does little to help improve a paper that may have potential.
>
> --j
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Murray Efford
>  wrote:
> > James Crants has it right. I recently wrote a harsh review of a poor
> paper by a high-profile author, pointing out numerical and conceptual errors
> and disregard of the literature. I did what I thought was the decent thing
> and signed the review. The paper was published with a less-than-gracious
> acknowledgment of my contribution. This should not have got past the
> editors, but it did, and I will not sign reviews for them again. Anonymity
> serves to depersonalise the review process and dilute the pernicious effects
> of status and reputation.
> >
> > Murray Efford
> >
> > 
> > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [
> ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants [jcra...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 5:39 a.m.
> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
> >
> > On the other hand, if the reviewers are anonymous, the authors should be,
> > too.  I think transparency is a bad thing, in this case; I think reviews
> > should be double-blind.
> >
> > While reviewer anonymity allows reviewers to be impolite and harsh, it
> also
> > protects them from retribution for simply being honest when a paper is
> bad.
> > Yes, scientists should all be mature enough to accept a negative review
> > without trying to punish the reviewer, but some just aren't up to that
> > challenge (if you can't think of a way for one scientist to punish
> another,
> > or if you can't think of a scientist who would do such a thing, you can't
> be
> > trying that hard).  Even if you can't imagine deliberately punishing
> someone
> > for their review, you must be able to imagine being miffed at a colleague
> > who gives your paper a bad review, or having them be miffed at you, even
> if
> > the bad review is merited.  That's an incentive to be polite, sure, but
> also
> > an incentive to let things slide that shouldn't be allowed to slide.  I
> > think the benefits of reviewer anonymity outweigh the costs.
> >
> > Author anonymity would have a similar advantage:  it would make it
> > harder for reviewers to pan someone's work just because they don't
> > personally like the author, or to reward their friends with favorable
> > reviews.  Obviously, if the reviewer is quite familiar with the author's
> > other work, it is possible to identify the author by writing style, study
> > system, and hypotheses raised, but any uncertainty about the authorship
> of
> > a paper under review should go one step toward dissuading reviewers from
> > letting personal feelings hold too much sway over their judgement.
> >
> > Author anonymity could also prevent reviewers from judging authors and
> their
> > works harshly based on their earlier submission of an u

[ECOLOG-L] March 31st. Wilderness Society Scholarship Deadline

[Christine Soliva]

Gloria Barron Wilderness Society Scholarship

The Wilderness Society is now accepting applications for the 2010 Gloria Barron 
Wilderness Society Scholarship. This 10,000 scholarship is awarded annually to 
a graduate student in natural resources management, law or policy programs.

The scholarship seeks to encourage individuals who have the potential to make a 
significant positive difference in the long-term protection of wilderness in 
North America.
The award is made in support of research and preparation of a paper on an 
aspect of wilderness establishment, protection, or management. The work may 
apply to a particular landscape or it may address issues broadly.  We strongly 
encourage proposals relating to climate change, as well as other topics 
regarding wilderness conservation.

For more information and application instructions, please visit our website at 
http://wilderness.org/content/gloria-barron-scholarship-guidelines
 

Application Deadline: March 31, 2010

Best,
Christine Soliva
Research Project Coordinator
202-429-3944

The Wilderness Society
1615 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
www.wilderness.org


 
To protect wilderness and to inspire Americans to care for our wild places.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Responses to Marking Salamanders Question

[Resetarits, William J]

Dorsal patterns, be they color patterns, lateral line pores (larval
salamanders), or whatever, only work in "captive populations" e.g. in
impermeable mesocosms or enclosures, or in natural populations in
conjunction with some sort of "permanent" means of telling marked from
unmarked individuals.  Otherwise one is always at risk of simply finding
the best match, which may NOT be the same individual.  

William J. Resetarits
Program Director
Population and Community Ecology Cluster
Division of Environmental Biology
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 635
wrese...@nsf.gov
Voice (703) 292-7184
Fax (703) 292-9064


-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Brown
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 4:11 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Responses to Marking Salamanders Question

To all,
 
I'd like to thank everyone who sent in suggestions for marking green
salamanders so as to identify individuals during filmed encounters. I've
summarized the suggestions below and indicated our plans, for those
interested.
 
Four people suggested using dorsal patterns, either through photo
libraries or image analysis software. Two suggested using injectable
elastomers and two others suggested fluorescent powder; at least one
person for each of these indicated that they may be visible under red
lights (which we will use) and without using UV lighting. Two people
suggested the use of small rubber bands or hair bands, which apparently
can be placed around the body either behind the head, between the legs,
or near the legs. And finally, one person suggested supergluing ribbons
(or other small objects) onto the backs, which seems to have no adverse
effects.
 
Because of our needs (simplicity, the ability to follow the animal
easily as it moves, and the ability to sham mark if needed) we're trying
the superglue idea first. My student has created some paint dots and
glued them near the base of the tail. The retention rate is about 60-70%
thus far over 24 hours; however, the glue itself stays put even if the
dot does not, so we think we can follow the marked individual this way.
If this doesn't work well, we're going to try the rubber/hair bands,
using different colors or widths.
 
CAB

Chris Brown
Associate Professor
Dept. of Biology, Box 5063
Tennessee Tech University
Cookeville, TN 38505
email: cabr...@tntech.edu
website: iweb.tntech.edu/cabrown
 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[Ned Dochtermann]

I highly recommend everyone take a look at a related page Charles Fox has:
http://www.uky.edu/~cfox/PeerReview/Index.htm

There are some very amusing quotes on his page. 

Ned

--
Ned Dochtermann
Department of Biology
University of Nevada, Reno

775-784-6781
docht...@unr.nevada.edu
www.unr.nevada.edu/~dochterm/
--


-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:40 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

Wow, I clearly hit on a painful topic here!  I've been getting asked
on-list and off- to clarify, a bit, why I might want to do what my
original question was about: make the reviews (but not the identity of
the reviewers) I've received of my OWN papers public to other people.
I would hazard to guess 99% of us have had a least one paper rejected
due to a reviewer who did a less-than-stellar job at reviewing a paper
-- whether laziness, unfamiliarity with the subject matter, politics,
competition on a subject that the reviewer may be trying to get
published themself, etc (how often have you thought "Did this person
even read my paper?").  There don't seem to be a lot of forums out
there to shed light on "good reviews" vs. "bad reviews" -- we receive
them, we complain to our co-authors and other people we are close to,
but, as my OP indicated, I wanted to know if we could turn around and
show the world these types of reviews in an attempt, not as revenge
(since the reviewer remains anonymous), but to let people know these
types of reviews are unhelpful and can really damage the scientific
process, hopefully to get across to the people producing these bad
reviews they need to think about how they treat their role in the
peer-review process, and to teach new reviewers how to write good
reviews.

I want to clarify a point: I don't mean that a "bad review" is one in
which your paper is rejected, a "bad review" I define a bad review as
one that does little to help improve a paper that may have potential.

--j


On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Murray Efford
 wrote:
> James Crants has it right. I recently wrote a harsh review of a poor paper
by a high-profile author, pointing out numerical and conceptual errors and
disregard of the literature. I did what I thought was the decent thing and
signed the review. The paper was published with a less-than-gracious
acknowledgment of my contribution. This should not have got past the
editors, but it did, and I will not sign reviews for them again. Anonymity
serves to depersonalise the review process and dilute the pernicious effects
of status and reputation.
>
> Murray Efford
>
> 
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants [jcra...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 5:39 a.m.
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
>
> On the other hand, if the reviewers are anonymous, the authors should be,
> too.  I think transparency is a bad thing, in this case; I think reviews
> should be double-blind.
>
> While reviewer anonymity allows reviewers to be impolite and harsh, it
also
> protects them from retribution for simply being honest when a paper is
bad.
> Yes, scientists should all be mature enough to accept a negative review
> without trying to punish the reviewer, but some just aren't up to that
> challenge (if you can't think of a way for one scientist to punish
another,
> or if you can't think of a scientist who would do such a thing, you can't
be
> trying that hard).  Even if you can't imagine deliberately punishing
someone
> for their review, you must be able to imagine being miffed at a colleague
> who gives your paper a bad review, or having them be miffed at you, even
if
> the bad review is merited.  That's an incentive to be polite, sure, but
also
> an incentive to let things slide that shouldn't be allowed to slide.  I
> think the benefits of reviewer anonymity outweigh the costs.
>
> Author anonymity would have a similar advantage:  it would make it
> harder for reviewers to pan someone's work just because they don't
> personally like the author, or to reward their friends with favorable
> reviews.  Obviously, if the reviewer is quite familiar with the author's
> other work, it is possible to identify the author by writing style, study
> system, and hypotheses raised, but any uncertainty about the authorship of
> a paper under review should go one step toward dissuading reviewers from
> letting personal feelings hold too much sway over their judgement.
>
> Author anonymity could also prevent reviewers from judging authors and
their
> works harshly based on their earlier submission of an unpublishable paper.
> If you thought someone's submitted paper was a real dog, you might not
think
> much of their intelligence, and you'd give less credence 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[William Silvert]

I would hardly recommend following Am Nat for reviewing policy. Although 
much of my work would fit there, I am not one of their crowd and got badly 
burnt the one time I submitted to them. After months of wating for a 
response, and sending unanswered letters, I charged into the editorial 
offices and confronted the editor, who blandly explained that a member of 
their editorial board had a student working on the same problem and had 
asked to have the paper held until the student had finished. Of course I 
withdrew the paper and had no problem publishing it elsewhere.


This was a long time ago and I hope that their policy has changed (the 
editor explained that they strongly support their editorial board), but 
there are several journals that have a clique of regular authors, and these 
should be avoided like the plague.


Bill Silvert


- Original Message - 
From: "Christopher Brown" 

To: 
Sent: segunda-feira, 1 de Março de 2010 22:16
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?




Jonathan,

As it so happens, a message close to yours in my email folder was from a
review I did for American Naturalist. As part of the message from the
editor is the line "Please keep all reviews, including your own,
confidential." Thus, at least for Am Nat, it appears that the reviews
should remain unpublished in any form. 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[William Silvert]

This definition is too restrictive. Bad reviews are ones where the reviewer 
is incompetent to judge the quality of the paper, as well as ones which are 
simply corrupt (rejecting a paper to steal the ideas, punishing an enemy, 
etc.). Some are simply off base because the reviewer doesn't understand his 
job. I once wrote a paper on fisheries which a leading scientist (OK, I'll 
boast, it was David Cushing) praised as a "seminal contribution", and which 
an engineer rejected as a simple application of linear systems theory (which 
it was). The editor desperately asked me for a response, but I simply wrote 
back that he had to decide whether the readers of the Journal of the 
Fisheries Research Board of Canada were fisheries scientists or linear 
systems theorists. The paper was published, I am happy to say.


Many reviewers have their own agendas, and they should not be allowed to 
corrupt the process because of this. I think that editors should make it 
clear what they expect reviewers to do and should try to judge whether they 
have done their jobs correctly. Rejecting a paper because the work was done 
poorly is one thing, rejecting it because you don't like the results is 
another.


I'll throw in a comment about anonymity. If you receive a paper that cites 
half a dozen papers by Silvert, I wrote it, becaue no one else cites me. And 
if your paper is rejected because you ignored the important work of Silvert, 
you can assume that I reviewed it. Unfortunately the only authors or 
reviewers who are anonymous are ones unknown to each other because they are 
in different fields, and should not be reviewing each others' work. More and 
more I find myself being sent papers that I am not competent to review, and 
in fact I cannot even understand the title and abstract (I of  course refuse 
these). Unless the editors make more of an effort to make sure that 
reviewers are the right people for the job and are doing what they should, 
the concept of peer review threatens to become a farce.


Bill Silvert


- Original Message - 
From: "Jonathan Greenberg" 

To: 
Sent: terça-feira, 2 de Março de 2010 21:40
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?



I want to clarify a point: I don't mean that a "bad review" is one in
which your paper is rejected, a "bad review" I define a bad review as
one that does little to help improve a paper that may have potential.

[ECOLOG-L] Postdoctoral position: Quantitative Ecologist/Fisheries Scientist

[Sarah Lester]

Postdoctoral Researcher: 
Quantitative Ecologist/Fisheries Scientist
Marine Science Institute and Bren School of Environmental Science &
Management, University of California Santa Barbara

Qualifications: We are seeking a postdoctoral researcher with expertise in
quantitative ecology and/or fishery science, with experience modeling open
ocean ecosystems, ideally fisheries for pelagic species. A PhD is required
and the degree must have been conferred within the last five years. Strong
programming and mathematical skills are required. Proficiency in Matlab, R,
or equivalent is required. Some knowledge of Spanish strongly preferred.
Candidate must be able to work both independently and in a collaborative
setting.

Job Description: Start date is as soon as possible, but no later than August
1, 2010. The postdoctoral researcher will work with the Sustainable
Fisheries Group at University of California, Santa Barbara
(http://sfg.msi.ucsb.edu), under the direction of Steven Gaines and
Christopher Costello, as the lead researcher on a project modeling the
anchoveta fishery in Peru. The project will require short trips and extended
stays in Lima, although the researcher will be based at UCSB. The researcher
will be responsible for developing a bioeconomic model that evaluates both
economic and conservation outcomes of different fishing policies for
Peruvian anchovy, helping to inform anchoveta fishery management and the
management of fisheries for small pelagics more generally. Model development
and analysis will include: 1) significant attention to parameterization
using the best available data, 2) development of an economic component of
the model, and 3) evaluating the performance of different management
strategies within a variable environment. The researcher will be responsible
for compiling results for applied purposes, but the questions will be
relevant to fisheries around the globe, and the researcher will be expected
to prepare results for (potentially high impact) peer reviewed journals.

Salary and Benefits: 100% time appointment for one year from start date,
with strong possibility for additional year(s) of funding contingent upon
performance. Salary is $48,000 a year plus benefits.

The Marine Science Institute is especially interested in candidates who can
contribute to the diversity and excellence of the academic community through
research, teaching, and service. The University of California is an equal
opportunity employer.

To apply: Please send your letter of interest, CV, and contact information
for three references to Sarah Lester at les...@msi.ucsb.edu.the position
will remain open until filled, but application review will commence on March
15, 2010.

[ECOLOG-L] Field assistant - wildfires and sagebrush steppe

[Matt Davies]

ob Title: Field Assistant - Wildfire and Sagebrush-steppe vegetation

Location: Richland, WA (Arid Lands Ecology Reserve)

Company: University of Washington, School of Forest Resources

Final Application Filing Date: 12th March 2010

Job Description:
A field crew position is available as part of the multi-agency fi...@ale
project evaluating the effects of multiple wildfires on sagebrush-steppe in
eastern Washington. The project is a collaboration between the University of
Washington, The Nature Conservancy, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fieldwork will take place in and around the Arid Lands Ecology
Reserve(Hanford Reach National Monument, WA). Crews will be in the field for
extended periods (up to 10 consecutive days); housing and food will be
provided while in the field. The position is best suited to a mature, upper-
level undergraduate or recent graduate who is considering advanced study or
professional work in plant ecology or range management.

Qualifications: Previous experience in standard vegetation sampling
techniques, familiarity with basic surveying tools; coursework or experience
in range ecology, fire ecology, or a related field; Good physical condition,
and able to work long hours in variable weather; Washington state drivers
license and experience driving off-road; Neat and legible handwriting Able
to work and live cooperatively with others; Familiarity with the flora of
sagebrush-steppe systems is desirable. 

See the attached pdf for more information and how to apply visit
http://depts.washington.edu/firesale/UW_firesale_field_tech_100222.pdf

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[William Silvert]

I agree totally. At the very least, negative reviews may be good for laughs 
to alleviate the pain of rejection. I have previously posted to this list 
the story of my paper in which I stated that we have to tell the public that 
conserving biodiversity involves more than protecting cute pandas and fuzzy 
baby seals, which was rejected because I didn't know that the proper 
scientific term was "charismatic megafauna". There was the time when the 
reviewer sneered that I obviously knew nothing about ecological modelling 
and should consult X, who was a student who flunked out of my modelling 
course (of course the reviewer may have been right!).


I also think that authors should have the right to protest reviewing 
standards, which is hard to do if you cannot quote the reviews. As a 
theoretical ecologist I frequently run into reviewers and editors who feel 
that papers must contain original data, and novel interpretations are not 
good science. I reserve the right to protest.


Bill Silvert


- Original Message - 
From: "Jonathan Greenberg" 

To: 
Sent: segunda-feira, 1 de Março de 2010 23:09
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?



Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your
own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post
these if you want.  I was interested in compiling the types of reviews
people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find
out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end
up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)? 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[Jonathan Greenberg]

Wow, I clearly hit on a painful topic here!  I've been getting asked
on-list and off- to clarify, a bit, why I might want to do what my
original question was about: make the reviews (but not the identity of
the reviewers) I've received of my OWN papers public to other people.
I would hazard to guess 99% of us have had a least one paper rejected
due to a reviewer who did a less-than-stellar job at reviewing a paper
-- whether laziness, unfamiliarity with the subject matter, politics,
competition on a subject that the reviewer may be trying to get
published themself, etc (how often have you thought "Did this person
even read my paper?").  There don't seem to be a lot of forums out
there to shed light on "good reviews" vs. "bad reviews" -- we receive
them, we complain to our co-authors and other people we are close to,
but, as my OP indicated, I wanted to know if we could turn around and
show the world these types of reviews in an attempt, not as revenge
(since the reviewer remains anonymous), but to let people know these
types of reviews are unhelpful and can really damage the scientific
process, hopefully to get across to the people producing these bad
reviews they need to think about how they treat their role in the
peer-review process, and to teach new reviewers how to write good
reviews.

I want to clarify a point: I don't mean that a "bad review" is one in
which your paper is rejected, a "bad review" I define a bad review as
one that does little to help improve a paper that may have potential.

--j


On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Murray Efford
 wrote:
> James Crants has it right. I recently wrote a harsh review of a poor paper by 
> a high-profile author, pointing out numerical and conceptual errors and 
> disregard of the literature. I did what I thought was the decent thing and 
> signed the review. The paper was published with a less-than-gracious 
> acknowledgment of my contribution. This should not have got past the editors, 
> but it did, and I will not sign reviews for them again. Anonymity serves to 
> depersonalise the review process and dilute the pernicious effects of status 
> and reputation.
>
> Murray Efford
>
> 
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
> [ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants [jcra...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 5:39 a.m.
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
>
> On the other hand, if the reviewers are anonymous, the authors should be,
> too.  I think transparency is a bad thing, in this case; I think reviews
> should be double-blind.
>
> While reviewer anonymity allows reviewers to be impolite and harsh, it also
> protects them from retribution for simply being honest when a paper is bad.
> Yes, scientists should all be mature enough to accept a negative review
> without trying to punish the reviewer, but some just aren't up to that
> challenge (if you can't think of a way for one scientist to punish another,
> or if you can't think of a scientist who would do such a thing, you can't be
> trying that hard).  Even if you can't imagine deliberately punishing someone
> for their review, you must be able to imagine being miffed at a colleague
> who gives your paper a bad review, or having them be miffed at you, even if
> the bad review is merited.  That's an incentive to be polite, sure, but also
> an incentive to let things slide that shouldn't be allowed to slide.  I
> think the benefits of reviewer anonymity outweigh the costs.
>
> Author anonymity would have a similar advantage:  it would make it
> harder for reviewers to pan someone's work just because they don't
> personally like the author, or to reward their friends with favorable
> reviews.  Obviously, if the reviewer is quite familiar with the author's
> other work, it is possible to identify the author by writing style, study
> system, and hypotheses raised, but any uncertainty about the authorship of
> a paper under review should go one step toward dissuading reviewers from
> letting personal feelings hold too much sway over their judgement.
>
> Author anonymity could also prevent reviewers from judging authors and their
> works harshly based on their earlier submission of an unpublishable paper.
> If you thought someone's submitted paper was a real dog, you might not think
> much of their intelligence, and you'd give less credence to anything else
> they said subsequently.  If the author were genuinely a poor scientist,
> you'd be ahead of the game by learning to doubt them early on, but if they
> were a solid researcher, and their name were on a bad paper for any of a
> hundred other possible reasons, you'd be cheating yourself by selling them
> short.
>
> (Sorry for taking another step down this tangental path.  Also, I wish our
> language had a singular pronoun for a person of unspecified sex.)
>
> Jim Crants
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Marc Kochzius wrote:
>
>> Dear Al

[ECOLOG-L] Visitor Information Assistant/Recreation Technician

[Bridget Walden]

Spend the summer season serving at the Tallac Historic Site at beautiful 
Lake Tahoe. Work alongside Forest Service staff to provide interpretive 
programming and visitor services. This is an excellent opportunity to gain 
experience in the field of interpretation at one of the nations premiere 
visitor destinations. Tallac Historic Site contains three historic 
properties that once belonged to the Baldwin, Pope and Heller families. The 
houses, built between 1894 and 1923, offer a glimpse of the lifestyles of 
Tahoe's early rich and famous visitors. 

Compensation:
This is an AmeriCorps position, and candidates will receive a living stipend 
of $9,902 for the season. This is not an hourly wage or a salary and is paid 
to members bi-monthly throughout the entire year. Upon completion of 
AmeriCorps service, members shall receive an additional education award in 
the amount of $2,362.50 that can be used for paying off student loans, or 
paying tuition for a Title IV accredited college.

Timeline: May 3, 2010 – October 30, 2010 

Primary Scope of Responsibilities:
Perform routine visitor center operations duties including opening and 
closing the Baldwin Museum and Pope House. 
Announce and operate regularly scheduled theatre and audiovisual programs. 
Operate a variety of equipment including DVD player, video cassette player, 
and alarm system. 
Conduct interpretive programs related to various themes associated with the 
Tallac Historic Site including:
Development of tourism in the Tahoe Basin
Baldwin, Tevis, Pope, and Heller family histories
Historic preservation and restoration
Operate a cash register for retails sales within the Baldwin Museum. 
Meet visitors and independently respond to phone and mail inquiries 
requesting information. 
Assist in the preparation of informational materials. 
Provide custodial services daily including cleaning of restrooms and trash 
removal. 

Preferred Qualifications
B.S. in history, museology, recreation, anthropology, or historic 
preservation.
Ability to work with minimal supervision.
Proven ability to work with the public including groups.
Interest in California history is a plus
Ability to multi-task and work with a diverse group of volunteers, staff 
members, and children.

Training:
Interpretive programming
On site history
Cash Handling
Additional training will be provided by the USFS. 

AmeriCorps Qualifications:
To qualify, you must be at least 17 years of age and a US citizen that has 
received a high school diploma or GED (or be willing to achieve this before 
using education award). All offers of employment are conditional upon 
completion of an acceptable check of the National Sex Offender Public 
Registry.

To Apply:
Step 1: Register at the AmeriCorps website by clicking here: 
https://my1.americorps.gov/mp/listing/viewListing.do?id=35283 and then click 
“Apply”. 
Step 2: Once registered login and complete the application. 
Step 3: Click the “Tell us your interest” drop down menu and search 
’Environment’ and select ’NV’ as the state. 
Step 4: Click on the appropriate position and finally hit the “Apply Now” 
button at the bottom of the listing. 

Please direct all questions regarding the application process to Bridget 
Walden at 
bwal...@gbinstitute.org or 775-674-5496

These AmeriCorps positions are made possible by a generous grant from Nevada 
Volunteers. This program is available to all, without regard to race, color, 
national origin, disability, age, or sex. Person with disabilities are 
encouraged to apply.
NCC is an Equal Opportunity Employer. 

[ECOLOG-L] Responses to Marking Salamanders Question

[Christopher Brown]

To all,
 
I'd like to thank everyone who sent in suggestions for marking green
salamanders so as to identify individuals during filmed encounters. I've
summarized the suggestions below and indicated our plans, for those
interested.
 
Four people suggested using dorsal patterns, either through photo
libraries or image analysis software. Two suggested using injectable
elastomers and two others suggested fluorescent powder; at least one
person for each of these indicated that they may be visible under red
lights (which we will use) and without using UV lighting. Two people
suggested the use of small rubber bands or hair bands, which apparently
can be placed around the body either behind the head, between the legs,
or near the legs. And finally, one person suggested supergluing ribbons
(or other small objects) onto the backs, which seems to have no adverse
effects.
 
Because of our needs (simplicity, the ability to follow the animal
easily as it moves, and the ability to sham mark if needed) we're trying
the superglue idea first. My student has created some paint dots and
glued them near the base of the tail. The retention rate is about 60-70%
thus far over 24 hours; however, the glue itself stays put even if the
dot does not, so we think we can follow the marked individual this way.
If this doesn't work well, we're going to try the rubber/hair bands,
using different colors or widths.
 
CAB

Chris Brown
Associate Professor
Dept. of Biology, Box 5063
Tennessee Tech University
Cookeville, TN 38505
email: cabr...@tntech.edu
website: iweb.tntech.edu/cabrown
 

[ECOLOG-L] Summer Research Assistant: Grassland Insect Ecology (Montana)

[David Branson]

Job Description: The USDA, Agriculture Research Service, Northern Plains
Agriculture Research Laboratory in Sidney, MT is seeking an enthusiastic and
hard-working individual to serve as a biological science aide.  Project
research examines the effects of fire and livestock grazing on grasshopper
populations, rangeland insect biodiversity, and rangeland vegetation; the
impact of grasshopper herbivory on interactions between native and exotic
plants; and climate effects on grasshopper populations.  Work may include
sampling and catching grasshoppers and other rangeland insects, vegetation
clipping and sampling, and site setup in the field. It will also include
work in the laboratory rearing grasshoppers and sorting insect and
vegetation catches.  Most field work will be conducted in the Little
Missouri National Grassland in western North Dakota and at Ft. Keogh near
Miles City, Montana.  Some overnight travel will be required. 

Job title, Grade & Salary: Biological Science Aide GS 0404/3 at $11.95/hour

Dates: This is a 10 or 11 week appointment with a start date of May 24,
2010. Shared accommodation is available at a cost of $150.00 for an 8-week
period. 

Qualifications: The candidate must be physically fit, and comfortable
spending long hours outside in sometimes uncomfortable field conditions
(hot, biting insects etc.)  Willingness to work long days, and weekends when
necessary is also a must.  Candidate must have 1 academic year of education
above the high school level or 6 months of general experience, or an
equivalent combination of both.  Undergraduate course work in ecology,
entomology, range or environmental sciences, and previous field or lab work
experience is preferred.

Application process: If you are interested in applying for this position,
please send a cover letter explaining your interest in the job, relevant
experience and education; a resume (CV); names and contact information of
two professional references and unofficial transcripts (electronically) to
Nicole Davidson (nicole.david...@ars.usda.gov).  Unofficial transcripts can
be mailed separately if not in electronic form. Evaluation of applications
will begin March 22, 2010 and continue until the position is filled. For
more information on our research program visit our website at:
www.ars.usda.gov/npa/nparl/dbranson or contact us directly.  
Mailing Address:
Nicole Davidson
USDA,ARS
1500 N. Central Ave.
Sidney, MT 59270
406-433-2020

[ECOLOG-L] Visitor Information Assistant

[Bridget Walden]

Spend the summer season serving at the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 
(LTBMU—Forest Service) Supervisor’s Office Front Desk and the Explore Tahoe 
Visitor Center at Heavenly Village. Work alongside Forest Service staff to 
provide visitor services and information to the general public. This is an 
excellent opportunity to gain experience in the field of recreation and 
visitor’s services at one of the nations premiere visitor destinations in 
the West. 

Compensation:
This is an AmeriCorps position, and candidates will receive a living stipend 
of $9,902 for the season. This is not an hourly wage or a salary and is paid 
to members bi-monthly throughout the entire year. Upon completion of 
AmeriCorps service, members shall receive an additional education award in 
the amount of $2,362.50 that can be used for paying off student loans, or 
paying tuition for a Title IV accredited college.

Timeline: May 3, 2010 – October 30, 2010 

Primary Scope of Responsibilities:
Communicates information regarding Lake Tahoe Basin geographic features, 
recreation sites, hiking and recreation opportunities, and local Forest 
Service regulations to visitors over the phone, in-person, by e-mail, 
through the LTBMU website, and by mail.  
Perform routine visitor center operations duties including opening and 
closing.
Operate a variety of equipment including DVD player, video cassette player, 
video projector, and alarm system. 
Issues and sells woodcutting, wilderness, fire, and wedding permits.
Operate a cash register for retails sales. 
Assist in the preparation of informational materials. 
May conduct interpretive programs at Explore Tahoe Visitor Center including 
oral presentations, guided walks, environmental education programs, to 
visitors, school children, and organized groups on a variety of natural 
history, cultural history, and Forest Service natural resource programs

Work Environment:
The work is primarily performed in an office setting with occasional visits 
to other indoor and outdoor environments.  The work is mostly sedentary, 
however, some walking, bending, standing, and carrying of moderate weight 
objects is required.

Preferred Qualifications
B.S. in ecology, natural resources sciences or other related degree.
Ability to work with minimal supervision.
Computer literacy.
Proven ability to work with the public including groups.
Ability to learn local natural history. 
Experience with PowerPoint presentations. 
Ability to multi-task and work with a diverse group of volunteers, staff 
members, and children.
Ability to speak a foreign language, an interest in natural history, and 
record keeping experience are all pluses. .
Transportation to site needed. Public transportation unreliable. 

Training:
Interpretive programming
Natural history
Cash Handling
Additional training will be provided by the USFS. 

AmeriCorps Qualifications:
To qualify, you must be at least 17 years of age and a US citizen that has 
received a high school diploma or GED (or be willing to achieve this before 
using education award). All offers of employment are conditional upon 
completion of an acceptable check of the National Sex Offender Public 
Registry.

To Apply:
Step 1: Register at the AmeriCorps website by clicking here: 
https://my1.americorps.gov/mp/listing/viewListing.do?id=35282 and then click 
“Apply”. 
Step 2: Once registered login and complete the application. 
Step 3: Click the “Tell us your interest” drop down menu and search 
’Environment’ and select ’NV’ as the state. 
Step 4: Click on the appropriate position and finally hit the “Apply Now” 
button at the bottom of the listing. 

Please direct all questions regarding the application process to Bridget 
Walden at bwal...@gbinstitute.org or 775-674-5496.

These AmeriCorps positions are made possible by a generous grant from Nevada 
Volunteers. This program is available to all, without regard to race, color, 
national origin, disability, age, or sex. Person with disabilities are 
encouraged to apply.

NCC is an Equal Opportunity Employer. 

[ECOLOG-L] Assistant Professor Natural Resources/Wildlife Management

[Kirsten Stephan]

Job Description: 
Lincoln University in Missouri (http://www.lincolnu.edu/pages/1.asp) 
invites applications for a faculty position in the Cooperative Research 
Unit. This position is a 12 month-non-tenure track approximately 50% 
research and 50% teaching in the area of Natural Resources –Wildlife 
Management. Applicant will be responsible for teaching Wildlife 
Conservation and Ecology, Wildlife Damage Management, Natural Resources 
Management Conflict Resolution, Human Dimensions in Wildlife Management, 
and other courses in Natural Resources area. Candidate will also advise 
undergraduate majors, participate on graduate student committees, and 
mentor undergraduate research. The incumbent will be expected to develop a 
nationally/internationally prominent research program, obtain extramural 
funding for the research, publish in peer- reviewed journals, collaborate 
with faculty within the programs at Lincoln University and other 
institutions, contribute to relevant professional societies, and make 
presentations of research findings. 

Application Procedure: 
Submit a Lincoln University application, cover letter, current resume or 
vita, official transcripts and three letters of reference to: Human 
Resource Services, Lincoln University, 101 Young Hall, PO Box 29, 
Jefferson City, MO. 65102-0029 Lincoln University is “An Equal 
Opportunity/Affirmative Action/ADA Employer." Qualifications: Individuals 
with a Ph.D. in Wildlife Science, Wildlife Damage Management, Ecology, or 
closely related field; strong interest and ability to conduct high-quality 
teaching and advisement of undergraduate students. Post- doctoral research 
experience preferred and teaching experience desirable. Interpersonal, 
effective oral and written communication skills, and willingness and 
ability to work in a team-oriented environment with a diverse group of 
students and faculty are essential. 

Salary Benefits: 
Commensurate with qualifications and experience. 

Closing Date: 
Open until position is filled. 

Further Information: 
Dr. Frieda Eivazi, Research Director, eiva...@lincolnu.edu 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[Murray Efford]

James Crants has it right. I recently wrote a harsh review of a poor paper by a 
high-profile author, pointing out numerical and conceptual errors and disregard 
of the literature. I did what I thought was the decent thing and signed the 
review. The paper was published with a less-than-gracious acknowledgment of my 
contribution. This should not have got past the editors, but it did, and I will 
not sign reviews for them again. Anonymity serves to depersonalise the review 
process and dilute the pernicious effects of status and reputation.

Murray Efford


From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants [jcra...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 5:39 a.m.
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

On the other hand, if the reviewers are anonymous, the authors should be,
too.  I think transparency is a bad thing, in this case; I think reviews
should be double-blind.

While reviewer anonymity allows reviewers to be impolite and harsh, it also
protects them from retribution for simply being honest when a paper is bad.
Yes, scientists should all be mature enough to accept a negative review
without trying to punish the reviewer, but some just aren't up to that
challenge (if you can't think of a way for one scientist to punish another,
or if you can't think of a scientist who would do such a thing, you can't be
trying that hard).  Even if you can't imagine deliberately punishing someone
for their review, you must be able to imagine being miffed at a colleague
who gives your paper a bad review, or having them be miffed at you, even if
the bad review is merited.  That's an incentive to be polite, sure, but also
an incentive to let things slide that shouldn't be allowed to slide.  I
think the benefits of reviewer anonymity outweigh the costs.

Author anonymity would have a similar advantage:  it would make it
harder for reviewers to pan someone's work just because they don't
personally like the author, or to reward their friends with favorable
reviews.  Obviously, if the reviewer is quite familiar with the author's
other work, it is possible to identify the author by writing style, study
system, and hypotheses raised, but any uncertainty about the authorship of
a paper under review should go one step toward dissuading reviewers from
letting personal feelings hold too much sway over their judgement.

Author anonymity could also prevent reviewers from judging authors and their
works harshly based on their earlier submission of an unpublishable paper.
If you thought someone's submitted paper was a real dog, you might not think
much of their intelligence, and you'd give less credence to anything else
they said subsequently.  If the author were genuinely a poor scientist,
you'd be ahead of the game by learning to doubt them early on, but if they
were a solid researcher, and their name were on a bad paper for any of a
hundred other possible reasons, you'd be cheating yourself by selling them
short.

(Sorry for taking another step down this tangental path.  Also, I wish our
language had a singular pronoun for a person of unspecified sex.)

Jim Crants

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Marc Kochzius wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I agree completely with Kevin that reviewers should sign their review.
> That's what I started to do and I will not make any reviews for journals
> that insist that I stay anonymous. From my point of view the problem is that
> some colleagues hide in anonymity and provide reviews that are not adequate
> (e.g. impolite, unsubstantiated criticism). Another problem in this context
> are the editors. I think it is their responsibility to check if a review is
> adequate. However, my experience is rather that most editors just pass the
> review to me and I just wonder what kind of reviews I receive. In many cases
> there is absolutely no quality control regarding the reviews. From many
> journals I also never get a feedback about my review, nor do I receive the
> reports of the other reviewers. This makes it impossible for me to evaluate
> if my review was in concordance with the other reviewers.
>
> Regarding the anonymity of the author, I think both sides (author and
> reviewer) should be named, the system should be as transparent as possible.
> Unfortunately, it is currently not transparent at all.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Marc
>
>
> Kevin Murray wrote:
>
>> Off the point here, but I think that the anonymity should be reversed.
>> Authors should be anonymous and reviewers should be named.
>>
>> Start a peer review revolution...sign all of your reviews!!!
>>
>> Regarding YOUR own reviews. It seems that, if they are anonymous, then
>> posting should be ok. If the reviewer is named, however, you should not
>> post. No laws or moral values were consulted in regards to this email.
>>
>> KLM
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Jonathan Greenberg > >wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Inte

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[Jason Jackson]

Maybe there are just too many papers?

It seems to me like this system can't scale up, and please understand -- 
I don't intend blame on any party, not to mention I don't have an idea 
how to fix it:)


Someone check my math, here, but I've observed that there are way more 
papers than say, 20 years ago (note qualitative assessment).  I've also 
heard coffee chat that "reviews are 'crappier' than they used to be in 
journal ".  If three reviewers need to read each one, and we've 
simply doubled the number of papers, then don't we need six times the 
number of scientists to review them (or to review six times as many per 
scientist)?  Is this one reason reviews are short and maybe not helpful?


-jj

Jason Jackson
Candidate for PhD
Duke University
Durham, NC 27704

Frank Marenghi wrote:
 


Regarding the use the reviews one receives on their manuscript:

 

I can not speak to whether the reviews are "copyrighted" or not ( I am not a lawyer either) and maybe this is an oversimplification, but I feel the reviews should be treated the same way as any other piece by a known author. After all, it is written by someone (other than oneself) and should be written in quotes and properly cited as Anonymous and the date. Just because we don't know who wrote doesn't mean we can do what we want with it. We just need to know to wasn't written by you. 

 

 


Regarding the anonymity of the reviewers / reviewees:

 

I feel the reviewee should be anonymous because of the reasons already mentioned by others (unfair treatment of well known authors, etc.). I also feel that the reviewer should be known because this "mask of anonymity" that may allow the reviewer to speak their mind should not be necessary. The reviewer should be confident enough with their criticisms that they should have no reason to hide their identity. If a reviewer is afraid to say something unless guaranteed anonymity, does it need to be said? or said in such a way? An honest (and useful) reviewer should be able to give criticism to the reviewees "face." If not, maybe they shouldn't be a reviewer. 

 

 


Best Regards,

 

 


Frank Marenghi

 

 

 


Frank P. Marenghi
Environmental Specialist III, Shellfish Program
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Tawes Building, 580 Taylor Ave., B-2 
Annapolis, MD 21401
 

 




 
 
  

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:12:57 -0500
From: hcasw...@whoi.edu
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU

Surprisingly enough, those reviews are copyrighted by their authors, 
automatically, even though the authors are anonymous. So, you can't 
publish them. You could assign them to a class in the same way you 
could assign other copyrighted materials, and you could write about 
them (with quotations) under the same fair use guidelines that apply 
to any other copyrighted material.


At least, that's my understanding (I am not a lawyer).

Hal Caswell


On Mar 1, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Jonathan Greenberg wrote:



Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your
own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post
these if you want. I was interested in compiling the types of reviews
people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find
out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end
up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?

--j

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan Greenberg 
 wrote:
  
Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on 
your

own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to 
post
these if you want. I was interested in compiling the types of 
reviews
people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to 
find
out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they 
end

up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?

--j


On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Christopher Brown 
 wrote:


Jonathan,

As it so happens, a message close to yours in my email folder was 
from a
review I did for American Naturalist. As part of the message from 
the

editor is the line "Please keep all reviews, including your own,
confidential." Thus, at least for Am Nat, it appears that the 
reviews

should remain unpublished in any form.

CAB

Chris Brown
Associate Professor
Dept. of Biology, Box 5063
Tennessee Tech University
Cookeville, TN 38505
email: cabr...@tntech

[ECOLOG-L] Visitor Services Information Assistant

[Bridget Walden]

Spend the summer season serving at the Taylor Creek Visitor Center at 
beautiful Lake Tahoe. Work alongside Forest Service staff to provide visitor 
services. This is an excellent opportunity to gain experience while serving 
at one of the nations premiere visitor destinations. Taylor Creek hosts 
interpretive programs and provides information and retail services to the 
general public. The main attraction is the Stream Profile Chamber that 
provides a view of the stream environment allowing visitors to study a 
diverted section of Taylor Creek through a panel of aquarium-like windows.

Compensation:
This is an AmeriCorps position, and candidates will receive a living stipend 
of $9,902 for the season. This is not an hourly wage or a salary and is paid 
to members bi-monthly throughout the entire year. Upon completion of 
AmeriCorps service, members shall receive an additional education award in 
the amount of $2,362.50 that can be used for paying off student loans, or 
paying tuition for a Title IV accredited college.

Timeline: May 3, 2010 – October 30, 2010 

Primary Scope of Responsibilities:
Monitor and maintain information desk, store inventory, operating materials, 
and display boards. 
Operate a cash register for retails sales within the visitor center. 
Maintain a supply of maps and publications to answer visitor questions.
Assist in the preparation of informational materials. 
Open and close the visitor center. 
Announce and operate theatre and audiovisual programs. 
Provide customer service to internal and external customers. 
Meet visitors and independently reply to phone and mail inquiries.
Provide custodial services daily including cleaning of restrooms and trash 
removal. 
Provide informational presentations on local natural history and other 
topics. 

Preferred Qualifications
B.S. in ecology, natural resources sciences or other related degree.
Ability to work with minimal supervision.
Computer literacy.
Proven ability to work with the public including groups.
Ability to learn local natural history. 
Experience with PowerPoint presentations. 
Ability to multi-task and work with a diverse group of volunteers, staff 
members, and children.
Ability to speak a foreign language, an interest in natural history, and 
record keeping experience are all pluses. .
Transportation to site needed. Public transportation unreliable. 

Work Environment:
The work is performed both indoors (visitor center staffing) and outdoors 
(roving interpretation and presenting programs). One day/wk will work an 
evening schedule. Must be able to walk 1 mile without difficulty and stand 
behind visitor desk for 1-2 hours. Outdoor conditions vary from wet and cold 
(30F) to hot and dry (80F). 

Training:
Interpretive programming
On site natural history
Cash Handling
Additional training will be provided by the USFS. 

AmeriCorps Qualifications:
To qualify, you must be at least 17 years of age and a US citizen that has 
received a high school diploma or GED (or be willing to achieve this before 
using education award). All offers of employment are conditional upon 
completion of an acceptable check of the National Sex Offender Public 
Registry.

To Apply:
Step 1: Register at the AmeriCorps website by clicking here: 
https://my1.americorps.gov/mp/listing/viewListing.do?id=35284 and then click 
“Apply”. 
Step 2: Once registered login and complete the application. 
Step 3: Click the “Tell us your interest” drop down menu and search 
’Environment’ and select ’NV’ as the state. 
Step 4: Click on the appropriate position and finally hit the “Apply Now” 
button at the bottom of the listing. 
Please direct all questions regarding the application process to Bridget 
Walden at 
bwal...@gbinstitute.org or 775-674-5496

These AmeriCorps positions are made possible by a generous grant from Nevada 
Volunteers. This program is available to all, without regard to race, color, 
national origin, disability, age, or sex. Person with disabilities are 
encouraged to apply.
NCC is an Equal Opportunity Employer. 

[ECOLOG-L] Summer field assistants wanted, salt marsh research

[Pennings, Steven C]

We have openings for two field assistants to work with our group this
summer on community ecology projects with salt marsh crabs and insects.
For more information about our research, see
http://www.bchs.uh.edu/~steve/.  Work will involve vigorous activity
outdoors in hot, muddy, buggy conditions.  Projects will be based in
coastal Georgia, with some travel, and can start as early as mid April
and extend as late as late September.  Housing provided; salary
commensurate with experience but around $10/h.  Applicants with field
research experience preferred; ability to work both independently and as
part of diverse group essential.  Email resume and cover letter
describing your interests and career goals, and have one letter of
reference emailed to Steve Pennings, Department of Biology and
Biochemistry, University of Houston, spenni...@uh.edu.  Indicate when
you would be available to start work, and how late in the summer you
would be available.  Applications will be reviewed as received; do not
apply after March 31.

 

--

Steven Pennings

Department of Biology and Biochemistry

University of Houston

Houston TX 77204

713 743 2989

http://www.bchs.uh.edu/~steve/

 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[Randy Bangert]

I agree with Marc. Another problem seems to be that reviewers accept mss, to 
review, that they are not qualified to review, thus contributing to the 
"impolite, unsubstantiated criticism". Double-blind, or complete transparency 
might solve some problems. Or signing reviews, as suggested by Kevin & Marc. 
Perhaps I will start signing.

cheers - randy
=
RK Bangert
=

On Mar 2, 2010, at 2:44 AM, Marc Kochzius wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> I agree completely with Kevin that reviewers should sign their review. That's 
> what I started to do and I will not make any reviews for journals that insist 
> that I stay anonymous. From my point of view the problem is that some 
> colleagues hide in anonymity and provide reviews that are not adequate (e.g. 
> impolite, unsubstantiated criticism). Another problem in this context are the 
> editors. I think it is their responsibility to check if a review is adequate. 
> However, my experience is rather that most editors just pass the review to me 
> and I just wonder what kind of reviews I receive. In many cases there is 
> absolutely no quality control regarding the reviews. From many journals I 
> also never get a feedback about my review, nor do I receive the reports of 
> the other reviewers. This makes it impossible for me to evaluate if my review 
> was in concordance with the other reviewers.
> 
> Regarding the anonymity of the author, I think both sides (author and 
> reviewer) should be named, the system should be as transparent as possible. 
> Unfortunately, it is currently not transparent at all.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Marc
> 
> Kevin Murray wrote:
>> Off the point here, but I think that the anonymity should be reversed.
>> Authors should be anonymous and reviewers should be named.
>> 
>> Start a peer review revolution...sign all of your reviews!!!
>> 
>> Regarding YOUR own reviews. It seems that, if they are anonymous, then
>> posting should be ok. If the reviewer is named, however, you should not
>> post. No laws or moral values were consulted in regards to this email.
>> 
>> KLM
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Jonathan Greenberg 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>> Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your
>>> own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
>>> they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
>>> Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
>>> individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
>>> criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post
>>> these if you want.  I was interested in compiling the types of reviews
>>> people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find
>>> out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end
>>> up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?
>>> 
>>> --j
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan Greenberg 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your
 own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
 they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
 Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
 individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
 criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post
 these if you want.  I was interested in compiling the types of reviews
 people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find
 out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end
 up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?
 
 --j
 
 
 On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Christopher Brown 
  
>>> wrote:
>>>
> Jonathan,
> 
> As it so happens, a message close to yours in my email folder was from a
> review I did for American Naturalist. As part of the message from the
> editor is the line "Please keep all reviews, including your own,
> confidential." Thus, at least for Am Nat, it appears that the reviews
> should remain unpublished in any form.
> 
> CAB
> 
> Chris Brown
> Associate Professor
> Dept. of Biology, Box 5063
> Tennessee Tech University
> Cookeville, TN 38505
> email: cabr...@tntech.edu
> website: iweb.tntech.edu/cabrown
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Greenberg
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:48 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
> 
> Quick question that came up recently that I was curious about -- I know
> REVIEWERS are anonymous, but are the reviews you get supposed to be
> anonymous, or can

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[James Crants]

On the other hand, if the reviewers are anonymous, the authors should be,
too.  I think transparency is a bad thing, in this case; I think reviews
should be double-blind.

While reviewer anonymity allows reviewers to be impolite and harsh, it also
protects them from retribution for simply being honest when a paper is bad.
Yes, scientists should all be mature enough to accept a negative review
without trying to punish the reviewer, but some just aren't up to that
challenge (if you can't think of a way for one scientist to punish another,
or if you can't think of a scientist who would do such a thing, you can't be
trying that hard).  Even if you can't imagine deliberately punishing someone
for their review, you must be able to imagine being miffed at a colleague
who gives your paper a bad review, or having them be miffed at you, even if
the bad review is merited.  That's an incentive to be polite, sure, but also
an incentive to let things slide that shouldn't be allowed to slide.  I
think the benefits of reviewer anonymity outweigh the costs.

Author anonymity would have a similar advantage:  it would make it
harder for reviewers to pan someone's work just because they don't
personally like the author, or to reward their friends with favorable
reviews.  Obviously, if the reviewer is quite familiar with the author's
other work, it is possible to identify the author by writing style, study
system, and hypotheses raised, but any uncertainty about the authorship of
a paper under review should go one step toward dissuading reviewers from
letting personal feelings hold too much sway over their judgement.

Author anonymity could also prevent reviewers from judging authors and their
works harshly based on their earlier submission of an unpublishable paper.
If you thought someone's submitted paper was a real dog, you might not think
much of their intelligence, and you'd give less credence to anything else
they said subsequently.  If the author were genuinely a poor scientist,
you'd be ahead of the game by learning to doubt them early on, but if they
were a solid researcher, and their name were on a bad paper for any of a
hundred other possible reasons, you'd be cheating yourself by selling them
short.

(Sorry for taking another step down this tangental path.  Also, I wish our
language had a singular pronoun for a person of unspecified sex.)

Jim Crants

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Marc Kochzius wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I agree completely with Kevin that reviewers should sign their review.
> That's what I started to do and I will not make any reviews for journals
> that insist that I stay anonymous. From my point of view the problem is that
> some colleagues hide in anonymity and provide reviews that are not adequate
> (e.g. impolite, unsubstantiated criticism). Another problem in this context
> are the editors. I think it is their responsibility to check if a review is
> adequate. However, my experience is rather that most editors just pass the
> review to me and I just wonder what kind of reviews I receive. In many cases
> there is absolutely no quality control regarding the reviews. From many
> journals I also never get a feedback about my review, nor do I receive the
> reports of the other reviewers. This makes it impossible for me to evaluate
> if my review was in concordance with the other reviewers.
>
> Regarding the anonymity of the author, I think both sides (author and
> reviewer) should be named, the system should be as transparent as possible.
> Unfortunately, it is currently not transparent at all.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Marc
>
>
> Kevin Murray wrote:
>
>> Off the point here, but I think that the anonymity should be reversed.
>> Authors should be anonymous and reviewers should be named.
>>
>> Start a peer review revolution...sign all of your reviews!!!
>>
>> Regarding YOUR own reviews. It seems that, if they are anonymous, then
>> posting should be ok. If the reviewer is named, however, you should not
>> post. No laws or moral values were consulted in regards to this email.
>>
>> KLM
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Jonathan Greenberg > >wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your
>>> own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
>>> they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
>>> Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
>>> individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
>>> criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post
>>> these if you want.  I was interested in compiling the types of reviews
>>> people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find
>>> out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end
>>> up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?
>>>
>>> --j
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan Greenberg 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
 Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in review

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[Frank Marenghi]

 

Regarding the use the reviews one receives on their manuscript:

 

I can not speak to whether the reviews are "copyrighted" or not ( I am not a 
lawyer either) and maybe this is an oversimplification, but I feel the reviews 
should be treated the same way as any other piece by a known author. After all, 
it is written by someone (other than oneself) and should be written in quotes 
and properly cited as Anonymous and the date. Just because we don't know who 
wrote doesn't mean we can do what we want with it. We just need to know to 
wasn't written by you. 

 

 

Regarding the anonymity of the reviewers / reviewees:

 

I feel the reviewee should be anonymous because of the reasons already 
mentioned by others (unfair treatment of well known authors, etc.). I also feel 
that the reviewer should be known because this "mask of anonymity" that may 
allow the reviewer to speak their mind should not be necessary. The reviewer 
should be confident enough with their criticisms that they should have no 
reason to hide their identity. If a reviewer is afraid to say something unless 
guaranteed anonymity, does it need to be said? or said in such a way? An honest 
(and useful) reviewer should be able to give criticism to the reviewees "face." 
If not, maybe they shouldn't be a reviewer. 

 

 

Best Regards,

 

 

Frank Marenghi

 

 

 

Frank P. Marenghi
Environmental Specialist III, Shellfish Program
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Tawes Building, 580 Taylor Ave., B-2 
Annapolis, MD 21401
 

 



 
 
> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:12:57 -0500
> From: hcasw...@whoi.edu
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> 
> Surprisingly enough, those reviews are copyrighted by their authors, 
> automatically, even though the authors are anonymous. So, you can't 
> publish them. You could assign them to a class in the same way you 
> could assign other copyrighted materials, and you could write about 
> them (with quotations) under the same fair use guidelines that apply 
> to any other copyrighted material.
> 
> At least, that's my understanding (I am not a lawyer).
> 
> Hal Caswell
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Jonathan Greenberg wrote:
> 
> > Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your
> > own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
> > they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
> > Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
> > individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
> > criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post
> > these if you want. I was interested in compiling the types of reviews
> > people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find
> > out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end
> > up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?
> >
> > --j
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan Greenberg 
> >  wrote:
> >> Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on 
> >> your
> >> own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
> >> they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
> >> Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
> >> individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
> >> criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to 
> >> post
> >> these if you want. I was interested in compiling the types of 
> >> reviews
> >> people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to 
> >> find
> >> out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they 
> >> end
> >> up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?
> >>
> >> --j
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Christopher Brown 
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Jonathan,
> >>>
> >>> As it so happens, a message close to yours in my email folder was 
> >>> from a
> >>> review I did for American Naturalist. As part of the message from 
> >>> the
> >>> editor is the line "Please keep all reviews, including your own,
> >>> confidential." Thus, at least for Am Nat, it appears that the 
> >>> reviews
> >>> should remain unpublished in any form.
> >>>
> >>> CAB
> >>> 
> >>> Chris Brown
> >>> Associate Professor
> >>> Dept. of Biology, Box 5063
> >>> Tennessee Tech University
> >>> Cookeville, TN 38505
> >>> email: cabr...@tntech.edu
> >>> website: iweb.tntech.edu/cabrown
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> >>> [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Greenberg
> >>> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:48 PM
> >>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> >>> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
> >>>
> >>> Quick question that came up recently that I was curious about -- I 
> >>> know
> >>> REVIEWERS are anonymous, but are the reviews you get supposed to b

[ECOLOG-L] Job posting Plant Biotechnology

[Edwin Cruz-Rivera]

The search for the position below has been extended
Regards,

Edwin
---
Dr. Edwin Cruz-Rivera
Assistant Professor of Marine Biology
Biology Department
American University in Cairo
AUC Avenue, P.O. Box 74
New Cairo 11835, Egypt

Tel 20.2.2615.2906
fax 20.2.795.7565
edwinc...@aucegypt.edu

"It is not the same to hear the devil as it is to see him coming your way"
(Puerto Rican proverb)

  Plant BiotechnologyCategory: Biotechnology Department: Biology
Locations: Cairo, Egypt Posted: Jan 01, '10  Type: Full-time Ref. No.:
BIO-2-2010

*Job Description:*

The Department of Biology (BIOL) invites applications for a tenure-track
assistant professor position in plant biology, with experience in molecular
plant sciences and/or applications of plant biotechnology. The candidate
will join the Biology department and the Biotechnology graduate program
faculty beginning September 2010. Of particular interest are candidates who
can take advantage of the department's molecular biology and genomic
facilities and establish collaborations with AUC's Desert Development
Center. The successful candidate will be committed to excellence in
teaching, will develop an active program of research with undergraduate and
graduate students, and will provide service to the department and the
University. Emphasis will be given to candidates doing research in
biotechnology of crop plants, molecular biology of plant development, plant
hormones, use of plants in biofuel production from plant biomass,
bioremediation, medicinal plants and/or the development of plant natural
products. However, candidates in other sub disciplines will be considered

*Requirements:*
The candidate must hold a doctoral level degree in botany, plant sciences,
pharmaceutical sciences, or other related field. The candidate should have a
relevant track record of peer-reviewed scientific publications.

*
Additional Information:*
Review of applications will begin immediately and continue until February
15, 2010, or until the position is filled.

*
Application Instructions:*

All applicants must submit the following documents online:

(a) a current C.V;
(b) Please ask three referees familiar with your professional background to
sendreference letters directly to our office in New York (
lspe...@aucnyo.edu) or to the Office of the Provost (prov...@aucegypt.edu).
(c) a letter of interest; and
(d) a completed AUC Personal Information
Form(PIF).

[ECOLOG-L] Bringing better scientific guidance to Congress

[Michael Halpern]

Greetings, 
 
I am writing today to ask you to join thousands of your colleagues on a
scientist letter supporting the restoration of funding for the Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA). You can find the letter, organized by the
Union of Concerned Scientists,  here: 
https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2361

 
For 23 years, the OTA provided independent scientific and technological
guidance to Congress on issues from Alzheimer’s disease to acid rain.
OTA helped Congress to assess complex issues and make wiser legislative
choices. OTA reports addressed issues before almost every Congressional
committee, and through those reports, legislators could better
understand new technologies and their policy implications. 
 
The reports helped set the terms of debate and increased understanding
of the risks and implications of policy options. Because these reports
were designed to frame issues and assess multiple policy alternatives,
they were often cited by both sides during the same Congressional
debate. 
 
The OTA was the victim of budget cuts in 1995, a move that saved the
federal government a little more than $20 million annually. Since then,
the government has spent billions on new technologies that have not
worked as promised, ranging from real and virtual fences on the
U.S.-Mexico border to flawed baggage screening equipment. 
 
Attempts to quietly revive the OTA in the past have been unsuccessful,
mainly because of a lack of grassroots pressure. Our allies in Congress
tell us that a strong showing from the scientific community will greatly
increase the odds that Congress will decide to bring back this essential
resource. 
 
You can find more background information here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/ota 
 
The OTA represents a small investment with a guaranteed payoff: less
government waste and a more responsible Congress. Please sign on to the
letter today:
https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2361

 
 
Michael Halpern
Scientific Integrity Program Manager
Union of Concerned Scientists

1825 K Street, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
phone: (202) 331-5452
www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity
-

The Union of Concerned Scientists -- celebrating 40 years of working
for a healthy environment and a safer world. Sign up (
http://ucs.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=sign_up&s_src=subscribe&s_subsrc=tasknav
)today to receive email updates, news, event information, and urgent
action alerts.
 

Please print this only if you need to print this.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[Nitin Sekar]

Authors should remain anonymous, so that the temptation for a reviewer to go
easy on a 'known scientist' is removed.  A journal submission should be
judged on the basis of its content, not the history or affiliations of its
writers.  Transparency has its place (as with the reviewers), but it isn't
the solution to all problems!

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Marc Kochzius wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I agree completely with Kevin that reviewers should sign their review.
> That's what I started to do and I will not make any reviews for journals
> that insist that I stay anonymous. From my point of view the problem is that
> some colleagues hide in anonymity and provide reviews that are not adequate
> (e.g. impolite, unsubstantiated criticism). Another problem in this context
> are the editors. I think it is their responsibility to check if a review is
> adequate. However, my experience is rather that most editors just pass the
> review to me and I just wonder what kind of reviews I receive. In many cases
> there is absolutely no quality control regarding the reviews. From many
> journals I also never get a feedback about my review, nor do I receive the
> reports of the other reviewers. This makes it impossible for me to evaluate
> if my review was in concordance with the other reviewers.
>
> Regarding the anonymity of the author, I think both sides (author and
> reviewer) should be named, the system should be as transparent as possible.
> Unfortunately, it is currently not transparent at all.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Marc
>
>
> Kevin Murray wrote:
>
>> Off the point here, but I think that the anonymity should be reversed.
>> Authors should be anonymous and reviewers should be named.
>>
>> Start a peer review revolution...sign all of your reviews!!!
>>
>> Regarding YOUR own reviews. It seems that, if they are anonymous, then
>> posting should be ok. If the reviewer is named, however, you should not
>> post. No laws or moral values were consulted in regards to this email.
>>
>> KLM
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Jonathan Greenberg > >wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your
>>> own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
>>> they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
>>> Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
>>> individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
>>> criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post
>>> these if you want.  I was interested in compiling the types of reviews
>>> people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find
>>> out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end
>>> up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?
>>>
>>> --j
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan Greenberg 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
 Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your
 own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
 they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
 Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
 individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
 criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post
 these if you want.  I was interested in compiling the types of reviews
 people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find
 out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end
 up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?

 --j


 On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Christopher Brown 


>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
 Jonathan,
>
> As it so happens, a message close to yours in my email folder was from
> a
> review I did for American Naturalist. As part of the message from the
> editor is the line "Please keep all reviews, including your own,
> confidential." Thus, at least for Am Nat, it appears that the reviews
> should remain unpublished in any form.
>
> CAB
> 
> Chris Brown
> Associate Professor
> Dept. of Biology, Box 5063
> Tennessee Tech University
> Cookeville, TN 38505
> email: cabr...@tntech.edu
> website: iweb.tntech.edu/cabrown
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Greenberg
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:48 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
>
> Quick question that came up recently that I was curious about -- I know
> REVIEWERS are anonymous, but are the reviews you get supposed to be
> anonymous, or can they be posted in a public forum?
>
> --j
>
>
>

>>
>>
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[M. Murphy]

Dear all,

I think that authors should be anonymous.  This prevent reviewers from looking 
at the names of authors and forming a preconception about the paper before it 
is even read.  I think that this is particularly important in the cases where 
very well-known authors submit articles. They are given the benefit of the 
doubt before the paper is even read. 

 Having said that, it is often fairly simple to at least guess the group of 
authors or the lab based on the sites or material being discussed.   The same 
can often be said for the reviewers themselves based on who you recommended as 
a reviewer and the types of comments you get in return.  

The idea behind anonymous reviews is that you can feel free to give your honest 
opinion without offending the authors or burning potential collaborative 
bridges in the future.  I agree with having reviews be anonymous.

I also agree with previous statements that the editors should make sure that 
reviews are reasonable before sending them back to authors.  

As a reviewer, I would also appreciate getting feedback back from the editor as 
to the quality of my review and whether it was adequate.  We all start 
reviewing manuscripts with only the previous experience of having been reviewed 
to guide us.  I think we could all benefit from constructive criticism 
regarding the reviews we send out.


Meaghan
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

-Original Message-
From: Marc Kochzius 
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:44:59 
To: 
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

Dear All,

I agree completely with Kevin that reviewers should sign their review. 
That's what I started to do and I will not make any reviews for journals 
that insist that I stay anonymous. From my point of view the problem is 
that some colleagues hide in anonymity and provide reviews that are not 
adequate (e.g. impolite, unsubstantiated criticism). Another problem in 
this context are the editors. I think it is their responsibility to 
check if a review is adequate. However, my experience is rather that 
most editors just pass the review to me and I just wonder what kind of 
reviews I receive. In many cases there is absolutely no quality control 
regarding the reviews. From many journals I also never get a feedback 
about my review, nor do I receive the reports of the other reviewers. 
This makes it impossible for me to evaluate if my review was in 
concordance with the other reviewers.

Regarding the anonymity of the author, I think both sides (author and 
reviewer) should be named, the system should be as transparent as 
possible. Unfortunately, it is currently not transparent at all.

Cheers,

Marc

Kevin Murray wrote:
> Off the point here, but I think that the anonymity should be reversed.
> Authors should be anonymous and reviewers should be named.
>
> Start a peer review revolution...sign all of your reviews!!!
>
> Regarding YOUR own reviews. It seems that, if they are anonymous, then
> posting should be ok. If the reviewer is named, however, you should not
> post. No laws or moral values were consulted in regards to this email.
>
> KLM
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Jonathan Greenberg 
> wrote:
>
>   
>> Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your
>> own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
>> they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
>> Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
>> individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
>> criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post
>> these if you want.  I was interested in compiling the types of reviews
>> people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find
>> out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end
>> up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?
>>
>> --j
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan Greenberg 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your
>>> own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
>>> they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
>>> Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
>>> individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
>>> criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post
>>> these if you want.  I was interested in compiling the types of reviews
>>> people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find
>>> out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end
>>> up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?
>>>
>>> --j
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Christopher Brown 
>>>   
>> wrote:
>> 
 Jonathan,

 As it so happens, a message close to yours in my email folder was from a
 review I did for American Naturalist. As part of the mess

[ECOLOG-L] Access and Openness Restrictions on Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[Wayne Tyson]

Honorable Forum:

The cutting edge of change is by definition at the extreme of the "normal" 
distribution. If science requires intellectual honesty, it should promote, 
not restrict, shifts that are consistent with its principles. One should 
always be suspicious of restriction of speech. Science is by definition, a 
fomenter of change. Why the priesthood clings to tradition, however, is no 
mystery. But it is not science. It is CONTROL, not facilitation.


The onus of proof should be on the entities restricting sunlight, not on 
those who want to let it in. Failure to provide reasons for restriction is 
prima facie evidence of rationalization, not reason. That is, one should not 
have to go to great pains to justify transparency, one should have to meet a 
very high standard for suppressing speech or information. That done, the 
information should be suppressed, but the fact that it was suppressed should 
not. However, the keepers of the modern era's New Dark Ages may not agree. 
Power is not relinquished easily, noblesse oblige notwithstanding.


Luckily, this forum is an open one.

WT

"The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual 
discipline." --Raymond Gilmore


- Original Message - 
From: "Jonathan Greenberg" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:48 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?



Quick question that came up recently that I was curious about -- I
know REVIEWERS are anonymous, but are the reviews you get supposed to
be anonymous, or can they be posted in a public forum?

--j







No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2716 - Release Date: 03/01/10 
07:34:00

[ECOLOG-L] JOB: Forest Health Field Tech - Rhode Island

[James Barnes]

Job Description:
The Rhode Island Natural History Survey (RINHS) seeks to hire a Field 
Technician to provide support to the Forest Health Works Project (FHWP).  
The project will survey for & control invasive plants affecting ecological 
values, including forest health, in RI.  With field assistants, & in close 
coordination with cooperating agencies, conservation organizations, and 
other stakeholders, the Field Technician will 1) carry out rapid surveys 
of large forest areas in Rhode Island for invasive plants, 2) develop 
natural resource reports and recommendations for inventoried areas based 
on principles of ecology and natural resource management, & 3) supervise 
eradication and restoration regimens conducted by contracted labor.  The 
Technician will participate in other RINHS programs & tasks from time to 
time. 

Qualifications:
•A degree (Master's preferred) in natural sciences or a related field and 
significant prior experience and familiarity with forest ecosystems & 
botany, including invasive species;
•Familiarity with the plant species and forest communities of southern New 
England;
•Significant relevant field experience, including familiarity with the 
conditions and requirements for safe, effective work in rugged outdoor 
conditions; 
•Demonstrated ability to work systematically towards goals using 
independent initiative as well as by working collaboratively with partners 
and peers;
•Strong organizational skills, strong writing skills, and an ability to 
work to deadlines; 
•Demonstrated competence with georeferencing equipment, GIS software, and 
equipment;
•Demonstrated experience with invasive plant treatment techniques 
(familiarity with herbicides and regulations is a plus but pesticide 
applicators license is not required); 
•Experience supervising field assistants, student interns, contractors or 
equivalent; 
•Familiarity with plant restoration techniques (planting, seed collection, 
propagation, etc.) is a plus;
•A valid driver's license & automobile (mileage reimbursed); 
•Able to start immediately 

This is a fieldwork position. The Field Technician is required to 
undertake substantial physical exertion and/or physical strain, sometimes 
in remote locations, difficult terrain, and inclement weather. Work 
environment involves exposure to job hazards where there is a possibility 
of injury and/or arthropod-borne disease. 

The Field Technician will be based in the RINHS office in Kingston, but 
will travel extensively throughout RI.  Pay is $16-18hr depending on 
experience. This is a part-time, 12 month position averaging 20 hrs per 
week, with longer hours in the summer and short hours in the winter.  It 
is not eligible for fringe benefits. 

This position is funded by a grant under the American Recovery & 
Reinvestment Act of 2009 through the U.S. Forest Service. The Field 
Technician reports to the Forest Ecosystem Project Coordinator. RINHS is a 
private non-profit environmental science membership organization (see 
www.rinhs.org). RINHS is an equal opportunity employer, women & minorities 
are encouraged to apply.

Review of applications will begin Feb 22nd, and continue until the 
position is filled. To apply, email a cover letter, resume, and the names 
and contact information, including email and phone number, of three 
persons whom RINHS may contact regarding your experience and 
qualifications to Kira Stillwell programad...@rinhs.org 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

[Marc Kochzius]

Dear All,

I agree completely with Kevin that reviewers should sign their review. 
That's what I started to do and I will not make any reviews for journals 
that insist that I stay anonymous. From my point of view the problem is 
that some colleagues hide in anonymity and provide reviews that are not 
adequate (e.g. impolite, unsubstantiated criticism). Another problem in 
this context are the editors. I think it is their responsibility to 
check if a review is adequate. However, my experience is rather that 
most editors just pass the review to me and I just wonder what kind of 
reviews I receive. In many cases there is absolutely no quality control 
regarding the reviews. From many journals I also never get a feedback 
about my review, nor do I receive the reports of the other reviewers. 
This makes it impossible for me to evaluate if my review was in 
concordance with the other reviewers.


Regarding the anonymity of the author, I think both sides (author and 
reviewer) should be named, the system should be as transparent as 
possible. Unfortunately, it is currently not transparent at all.


Cheers,

Marc

Kevin Murray wrote:

Off the point here, but I think that the anonymity should be reversed.
Authors should be anonymous and reviewers should be named.

Start a peer review revolution...sign all of your reviews!!!

Regarding YOUR own reviews. It seems that, if they are anonymous, then
posting should be ok. If the reviewer is named, however, you should not
post. No laws or moral values were consulted in regards to this email.

KLM



On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Jonathan Greenberg wrote:

  

Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your
own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post
these if you want.  I was interested in compiling the types of reviews
people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find
out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end
up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?

--j

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan Greenberg 
wrote:


Interesting -- I'm primarily interested in reviews YOU receive on your
own submitted manuscript (which, 99% of the time, you don't know who
they are from) -- are you allowed to post these in any public forum?
Since the reviews cannot be linked back to an individual (unless that
individual steps forward and takes credit for it), and it is a
criticism of your own work, it seems like one should feel free to post
these if you want.  I was interested in compiling the types of reviews
people get on manuscripts for teaching purposes, so I'm trying to find
out if its legit for people to share these reviews with me if they end
up going out into the public (e.g. on a website)?

--j


On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Christopher Brown 
  

wrote:


Jonathan,

As it so happens, a message close to yours in my email folder was from a
review I did for American Naturalist. As part of the message from the
editor is the line "Please keep all reviews, including your own,
confidential." Thus, at least for Am Nat, it appears that the reviews
should remain unpublished in any form.

CAB

Chris Brown
Associate Professor
Dept. of Biology, Box 5063
Tennessee Tech University
Cookeville, TN 38505
email: cabr...@tntech.edu
website: iweb.tntech.edu/cabrown

-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Greenberg
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:48 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?

Quick question that came up recently that I was curious about -- I know
REVIEWERS are anonymous, but are the reviews you get supposed to be
anonymous, or can they be posted in a public forum?

--j




  

[ECOLOG-L] Tenure track positions in South Korea (SNU)

[Jonathan Miles Adams]

Everyone,

 My department here at SNU in Korea is advertising several tenure track 
positions, including ecology (see below). I arrived here about 6 months ago, 
and my experiences of the place have been overwhelmingly positive. My academic 
colleagues are very helpful and friendly, the students are very hardworking, 
Korea in general is a very pleasant and welcoming place to live. SNU is also in 
a particularly beautiful natural setting on the edge of Seoul. If you would 
like to discuss coming to Korea unofficially with me, please send me an email 
to my other address which is foundinkualalum...@yahoo.com.

   Jonathan Adams


Faculty Positions Open for International Scholars
Seoul National University
School of Biological Sciences, Korea

Tenure track faculty positions are open for foreign scientists in the
areas of 1) Molecular and Cellular Biology, 2) Integrative Organismic
Biology, and 3) Systematics and Ecology. The openings are limited to
non-Korean scientists. The responsibilities of these positions include both
research and teaching. Teaching will be conducted in English. The
applicants should have a Ph.D. degree and postdoctoral experience with
strong research backgrounds and achievements. Competitive set-up expenses
and stipends for 70% of graduate students are provided. Also, governmental
research grants are available for faculty research. The school offers an
excellent environment for research and is equipped with high performance
research facilities. The salary starts from approximately 60 million KRW
per year and is competitive depending on experience.
Faculty housing (2 to 4 bed rooms upon family size) is also available. For
more information, visit http://biosci.snu.ac.kr or email Dr. Kwangseog Ahn
(ks...@snu.ac.kr). The application including CV, three references, and a
research plan (3-4 pages) should be submitted to Chair, Prof. Jung-Hye
Roe, by email (ck...@snu.ac.kr).