Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less charitable: http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=twitterutm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29 The fact that ESA forces authors to cede the copyright to their work is offensive, IMO, even if they 'grant' the author reprint or reproduction rights. It also means that ESA could choose to rewrite their rules such that authors could lose rights to reprint or reproduce their own work. Academic publishers should be granted first printing rights, with the option to acquire additional rights at a later date, as they desire. Nothing more. As it currently stands, ESA's policy is essentially treating research articles as work-made-for-hire, which is ludicrous, given that authors must pay page charges to print the work! In essence researchers are paying to have their work printed, while ceding all of their rights to the publisher in the process. Further, I don't think anyone is suggesting that ESA should be denied all subscription fees (or page fees), but simply that papers should become available publicly over time, and that any research funded by public monies should be available to the public sooner rather than later. Which is entirely reasonable, and more than likely beneficial to the public. -m On 1/5/2012 12:33 AM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: Fellow Ecologgers, Have people read ESA's response to a proposed requirement that the results of federally funded research be publicly available, possibly after an embargo period? It's available here. http://www.esa.org/pao/policyStatements/Letters/ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI2011.pdf I have to say I find this response somewhat disappointing. While some of the concerns raised in it are certainly valid, I believe it underestimates ecologists' desire to read an interesting new paper now rather than later. Also, kudos to ESA for allowing authors to freely post their papers online, something I relied on when I didn't have university journal access, but how is this financially different from open access? ESA's 2009 financial statement (the latest available online) may be of interest. http://www.esa.org/aboutesa/docs/FS2009.pdf Thoughts? Jane Shevtsov -- Matt Patterson MSES/MPA 2012 Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs Center for the study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change (CIPEC) Room 226A | 408 N Indiana Ave | Bloomington, IN 47408-3799 Environmentally Scientific Emblogulations http://env-sci-blog.blogspot.com
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology?
Recent joint editorial from all herp societies published in Herpetological Conservation and Biology. The peer in Peer Review. http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_6/Issue_3/Joint_editorial_2011.pdf On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Chris Lortie lor...@yorku.ca wrote: Dear Ecologgers, Thank you so much for your feedback on the editorial 'Money for nothing and referees for free' published in Ideas in Ecology and Evolution in December (http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/IEE/index). The most compelling and common question I was asked was is there a referee crisis in ecology (or tragedy of the 'reviewers common' as Hochberg et al. proposed). This is an excellent question. I propose that whilst there are more perfect ways to test this (total up number of submissions and then estimate total pool of referees, tricky), an interesting indicator would instead to be calculate the decline to review rate (d2rr) in ecology. I envision the following two primary data streams to calculate this rate: a per capita estimate derived from each of us personally and a mean estimate of rate from the publishing portals (journals). Hence, let's do it. Only you know your decline to (accept doing a) review rate across all requests whilst journals track their own net rates and your specific rate with them too. So, please take 30 seconds and fill in this short survey, and we can then assess, to an extent, whether there is a referee crisis in ecology. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VD3K36W I have also compiled a long list of emails for every editor I could find for all ecology journals and have contacted them to see if they would share the rate at which individuals decline for each of them, i.e. do they have to ask 5 or 6 people to even secure two reviews? I will not share the journal names etc. and protect their rates as I recognize the implications. I would just like to know what our overall mean is from a journal perspective too. Thanks so much for your time and help with these discussions. I hope you think they are important too, but I also want to assure you that this is my penultimate post on the subject. Warm regards, Christopher Lortie. lor...@yorku.ca www.onepoint.ca -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive - Allan Nation 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology?
I haven't the time to develop this, so I'll throw it out there in hopes someone will run with it. I believe being asked to referee indicates one's standing in a field. Journals will always try to get the best referees possible. We simply don't have a way to measure or reward reviewing. For authors we have a measure of impact (actually several, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index for a quick start). I would suggest something similar for referees. Journals would produce an annual list of reviewers and the number of time each reviewed. The sum of the number of reviews by a referee times the impact factor of the journals they review in should give a pretty good index of their standing in their field. Reviewing in Science would be rare but earn a high score but more frequent reviewing in high ranked but more focused journals would really drive scores. Reviewing in low ranked journals would not help one's score much but as at present would be done more as moral obligation than for one's career. Further indices could correct for time and frequency of reviews, or look at mean rank, much as the H-index spawned a wave of refinements. Once each of us has a number (or various), there will be a natural inclination to want to improve one's standing (which can be done by more reviewing or by being asked to review by higher impact journals). Administrators, obsessed with the quantitative will latch onto this like flies onto roadkill for evaluating. The bottom line would be a competition for opportunities to review rather than a competition among editors for a limited number of reviewers. We would measure those who give back, not just those who publish. Of course this could be gamed, but the best defense would be editors who don't count reviews unless they reach a certain standard of excellence. Of course if editors were too picky, we wouldn't bother to review for that particular journal. We can continue to bemoan the state of reviewing, and dream up sticks with which to beat reviewers into helping, or we can come up with carrots. This carrot is cheap and appeals to both our better and worse angels. Anyway, I'd appreciate thoughts on it. If it goes anywhere, I hope someone will call it the D-Index. Cheers, David Duffy Professor/PCSU Unit Leader/CESU Director PCSU/CESU/Department of Botany University of Hawaii Manoa 3190 Maile Way, St John 410 Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Tel 808-956-8218, FAX 808-956-4710 http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/ - Original Message - From: malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012 4:49 am Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Recent joint editorial from all herp societies published in Herpetological Conservation and Biology. The peer in Peer Review. http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_6/Issue_3/Joint_editorial_2011.pdf On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Chris Lortie lor...@yorku.ca wrote: Dear Ecologgers, Thank you so much for your feedback on the editorial 'Money for nothing and referees for free' published in Ideas in Ecology and Evolution in December (http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/IEE/index). The most compelling and common question I was asked was is there a referee crisis in ecology (or tragedy of the 'reviewers common' as Hochberg et al. proposed). This is an excellent question. I propose that whilst there are more perfect ways to test this (total up number of submissions and then estimate total pool of referees, tricky), an interesting indicator would instead to be calculate the decline to review rate (d2rr) in ecology. I envision the following two primary data streams to calculate this rate: a per capita estimate derived from each of us personally and a mean estimate of rate from the publishing portals (journals). Hence, let's do it. Only you know your decline to (accept doing a) review rate across all requests whilst journals track their own net rates and your specific rate with them too. So, please take 30 seconds and fill in this short survey, and we can then assess, to an extent, whether there is a referee crisis in ecology. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VD3K36W I have also compiled a long list of emails for every editor I could find for all ecology journals and have contacted them to see if they would share the rate at which individuals decline for each of them, i.e. do they have to ask 5 or 6 people to even secure two reviews? I will not share the journal names etc. and protect their rates as I recognize the implications. I would just like to know what our overall mean is from a journal perspective too. Thanks so much for your time and help with these discussions. I hope you think they are important too, but I also want to assure you that this is my penultimate post on the subject. Warm regards,
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology?
What you are leaving out is the quality of the reviews. Just as with papers, some reviews are of much higher quality than others. Perhaps there should also be included in the index how many times the editors had to send reminders to the reviewer - before all the on-line journal review systems were up, this was a major pain in the neck. I haven't the time to develop this, so I'll throw it out there in hopes someone will run with it. I believe being asked to referee indicates one's standing in a field. Journals will always try to get the best referees possible. We simply don't have a way to measure or reward reviewing. For authors we have a measure of impact (actually several, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index for a quick start). I would suggest something similar for referees. Journals would produce an annual list of reviewers and the number of time each reviewed. The sum of the number of reviews by a referee times the impact factor of the journals they review in should give a pretty good index of their standing in their field. Reviewing in Science would be rare but earn a high score but more frequent reviewing in high ranked but more focused journals would really drive scores. Reviewing in low ranked journals would not help one's score much but as at present would be done more as moral obligation than for one's career. Further indices could correct for time and frequency of reviews, or look at mean rank, much as the H-index spawned a wave of refinements. Once each of us has a number (or various), there will be a natural inclination to want to improve one's standing (which can be done by more reviewing or by being asked to review by higher impact journals). Administrators, obsessed with the quantitative will latch onto this like flies onto roadkill for evaluating. The bottom line would be a competition for opportunities to review rather than a competition among editors for a limited number of reviewers. We would measure those who give back, not just those who publish. Of course this could be gamed, but the best defense would be editors who don't count reviews unless they reach a certain standard of excellence. Of course if editors were too picky, we wouldn't bother to review for that particular journal. We can continue to bemoan the state of reviewing, and dream up sticks with which to beat reviewers into helping, or we can come up with carrots. This carrot is cheap and appeals to both our better and worse angels. Anyway, I'd appreciate thoughts on it. If it goes anywhere, I hope someone will call it the D-Index. Cheers, David Duffy Professor/PCSU Unit Leader/CESU Director PCSU/CESU/Department of Botany University of Hawaii Manoa 3190 Maile Way, St John 410 Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Tel 808-956-8218, FAX 808-956-4710 http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/ - Original Message - From: malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012 4:49 am Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Recent joint editorial from all herp societies published in Herpetological Conservation and Biology. The peer in Peer Review. http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_6/Issue_3/Joint_editorial_2011.pdf On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Chris Lortie lor...@yorku.ca wrote: Dear Ecologgers, Thank you so much for your feedback on the editorial 'Money for nothing and referees for free' published in Ideas in Ecology and Evolution in December (http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/IEE/index). The most compelling and common question I was asked was is there a referee crisis in ecology (or tragedy of the 'reviewers common' as Hochberg et al. proposed). This is an excellent question. I propose that whilst there are more perfect ways to test this (total up number of submissions and then estimate total pool of referees, tricky), an interesting indicator would instead to be calculate the decline to review rate (d2rr) in ecology. I envision the following two primary data streams to calculate this rate: a per capita estimate derived from each of us personally and a mean estimate of rate from the publishing portals (journals). Hence, let's do it. Only you know your decline to (accept doing a) review rate across all requests whilst journals track their own net rates and your specific rate with them too. So, please take 30 seconds and fill in this short survey, and we can then assess, to an extent, whether there is a referee crisis in ecology. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VD3K36W I have also compiled a long list of emails for every editor I could find for all ecology journals and have contacted them to see if they would share the rate at which individuals decline for each of them, i.e. do they have to ask 5 or 6 people to even secure two reviews? I will not share the journal names etc. and protect their
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology?
David's message rings clear, but I am happy to report that he is incorrect on one matter. We DO have a system that measures and rewards reviewing. A recent initiative, called Peerage of Science, has instituted a system that (among other things) provides quantitative ratings of review quality. I encourage you to read the details about this bold new endeavour at: http://www.peerageofscience.org/ I hope the information there can convince many of you to join, or at least breathe easier that attempts are being made to divert an (aptly described) referee crisis. In reference to the issue at hand, that of quantifying referee effort, the PoS system works along the following lines: 1. A manuscript is submitted to PoS for review 2. Members are alerted to the ms, and can sign up to review it 3. After the manuscript's first submission is reviewed, the reviewers are then allowed to see each other's reviews (all anonymous) 4. The reviews are then scored by the other reviewers 5. The manuscript continues on in the process... Each reviewer then accumulates an average review quality score over time. Poor reviews are justifiably penalized with low scores. Excellent reviews accrue good scores. I am sure that the benefits here are obvious, and perhaps so are a few drawbacks. But, it is the first attempt of which I am aware that is trying to create a currency amongst reviewers that is not just an extra bullet on a performance review or CV. Check it out. Chris, as originator of this thread, I especially think you would be interested in this. Sincerely, Joe Nocera (Member of the Board of Governers for Peerage of Science) - Original Message - From: David C Duffy ddu...@hawaii.edu Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012 2:56 pm Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU I haven't the time to develop this, so I'll throw it out there in hopes someone will run with it. I believe being asked to referee indicates one's standing in a field. Journals will always try to get the best referees possible. We simply don't have a way to measure or reward reviewing. For authors we have a measure of impact (actually several, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index for a quick start). I would suggest something similar for referees. Journals would produce an annual list of reviewers and the number of time each reviewed. The sum of the number of reviews by a referee times the impact factor of the journals they review in should give a pretty good index of their standing in their field. Reviewing in Science would be rare but earn a high score but more frequent reviewing in high ranked but more focused journals would really drive scores. Reviewing in low ranked journals would not help one's score much but as at present would be done more as moral obligation than for one's career. Further indices could correct for time and frequency of reviews, or look at mean rank, much as the H-index spawned a wave of refinements. Once each of us has a number (or various), there will be a natural inclination to want to improve one's standing (which can be done by more reviewing or by being asked to review by higher impact journals). Administrators, obsessed with the quantitative will latch onto this like flies onto roadkill for evaluating. The bottom line would be a competition for opportunities to review rather than a competition among editors for a limited number of reviewers. We would measure those who give back, not just those who publish. Of course this could be gamed, but the best defense would be editors who don't count reviews unless they reach a certain standard of excellence. Of course if editors were too picky, we wouldn't bother to review for that particular journal. We can continue to bemoan the state of reviewing, and dream up sticks with which to beat reviewers into helping, or we can come up with carrots. This carrot is cheap and appeals to both our better and worse angels. Anyway, I'd appreciate thoughts on it. If it goes anywhere, I hope someone will call it the D-Index. Cheers, David Duffy Professor/PCSU Unit Leader/CESU Director PCSU/CESU/Department of Botany University of Hawaii Manoa 3190 Maile Way, St John 410 Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Tel 808-956-8218, FAX 808-956-4710 http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/ - Original Message - From: malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org Date: Saturday, January 7, 2012 4:49 am Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Is there a referee crisis in ecology? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Recent joint editorial from all herp societies published in Herpetological Conservation and Biology. The peer in Peer Review. http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_6/Issue_3/Joint_editorial_2011.pdf On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Chris Lortie lor...@yorku.ca wrote: Dear Ecologgers,
[ECOLOG-L] Looking for a PhD program
Hello ECOLOG, I have been enjoying this listserv for a couple of years now, but this is my first time posting to it. I have just graduated with a MS degree in Natural Science and am looking to continue my studies in a PhD program, however, I am having trouble finding faculty members that are a perfect match for me. My interests in ecology span multiple topics. I find myself especially interested in the interactions between plants and animals. I am interested in animal seed dispersal (of any type) and the role it plays in the dynamics of plant communities over time. This can include (but is not limited to)invasion into new ecosystems/ range expansion, spatial arrangement within a community, and attractant/dispersal mechanisms. Along similar lines, I would be interested in studying lichen ecology. Particularly herbivory and dispersal of lichens and the use of lichens in animal habitats (invertebrate habitats, bird nests, etc...). This is a greatly understudied field that I think could tell some interesting stories. It is here where I find difficulty finding a match for me. There are many people studying plant-animal interactions these days but few people interested in lichens. I have yet to find anyone interested in lichen-animal interactions. I have also run into the problem that the deadline for many programs has already passed. I am not sure if these deadlines are set in stone or if department faculty can work around them. Does anyone have any ideas for where I should look? Anyone looking for or have any room in their lab for me? I would be interested in any research in the above fields, even if it isn't in a PhD program. Thanks for taking the time to read my shameless plug! If you want any more information on me, let me know and I will gladly send it to you. Sincerely, Timothy Shearman
[ECOLOG-L] Community Education and Sustainable Development Internship
We are now accepting applications for the Spring session of the Community Education and Sustainable Development Internship, in the Community Learning Center in the small rural community of Camarones, which runs from March 15 through May 13! Join our team in working within the community of Camarones to develop educational, vocational, and social development projects! We are currently running programs including: English language, environmental education, culture and arts, family movie nights, vocational workshops, and social events in the community. We are looking for interns to help run these programs as well as work on community projects which include: organizing a community market event, reforestation project, school garden project, teen program, and women's workshops. If you are interested in learning more about the position, please click on the link below to download the program descriptions of each respective program. http://3malliance.org/index.php?id=320 How to Apply: First, peruse our website (3malliance.org), which includes a 10-minute video and an extensive photo gallery of past interns and the community. Then, if you want to apply for the internship, send an email to Laura Randall at la...@3malliance.org with the following subject heading: Community Education Internship with a formal resume and the answers to the following questions: 1. What stage of life are you at right now? (Finishing university, starting university, working professionally, between jobs?) 2. Why do you want to participate in this internship? 3. What relevant skills or experience do you have, if any? 4. How is your Spanish? 5. When would you like to come? We look forward to hearing from you!
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Correlated Count Data
Lee, I suggest you look into generalized estimating equations, implemented by package geepack in R. I believe you can incorporate an AR1 correlation structure within a Poisson framework via the argument 'corstr=ar1' in function geeglm. best, Nathaniel
