[ECOLOG-L] Short-COURSES pre-TRACE (Tree-Ring in Archeology, Climatology and Ecology) 2015
TRACE 2015-(Tree Rings in Archaeology, Climatology and Ecology), 20-23 May Sevilla, Spain REGISTRATION and ABSTRACT submission for the conference is OPEN. For all the details visit http://www.dendrospain.es/?page_id=83 LOW FEES and GRANTS for TRACE participants and ATR members SHORT COURSES: 19 May 2015: Schedule 9:00-18:30; at the same time at Univ. Pablo Olavide. Minimum 10 students to conduct the course (first come first served, priority TRACE participants). (45€ each course for TRACE participants; 75€ for Non-TRACE participant) Confirmed courses 1. Modelling dendro data and process-based models (J.A. Blanco G. Gea-Izquierdo) 2.Methods and applications of radiocarbon and stable isotopes in tree-ring (G. Battipaglia J. Voltas) 3. Dendrochemistry and blue reflectance: exploring new tools for tree-ring science (R. Kaczka, A. Buras A. Hevia) 4. Wood Anatomy in tree-ring research (H. Gärtner A. Crivellaro) More information about programs on the website soon. http://www.dendrospain.es/?page_id=52 To participate fill in the TRACE registration form http://www.dendrospain.es/?page_id=83 and send to dendrosp...@gmail.com We are looking forward to welcome you in Sevilla, TRACE 2015 - Organizing Committee Achim Bräuning (on behalf of ATR) Juan C. Linares (UPO) Raúl Sánchez-Salguero (UPO) José I. Seco (UPO) J. Julio Camarero (IPE-CSIC) Emilia Gutiérrez (UB) José M. Olano (UVa) Andrea Hevia (CETEMAS) dendrosp...@gmail.com www.dendrospain.es https://www.facebook.com/DendroSpain Department of Physical, Chemical and Natural Systems University Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla Ctra. Utrera Km 1, 41013 Sevilla, SPAIN
[ECOLOG-L] New England Botanical Club Research Conference: Call for Abstracts
New England Botanical Club Research Conference_Call for Abstracts Please submit abstracts for consideration for presentation at the New England Botanical Club Research Conference, June 5-7, Smith College (Northampton, MA). Both poster and oral presentations are welcome. We especially encourage the participation of undergraduate and graduate students. There are NO registration fees. All abstracts must be submitted electronically via the registration form. Abstracts must not exceed 3000 characters. Titles are limited to 200 characters. Limit of one abstract per senior author. Please keep in mind that submitting an abstract does not ensure its acceptance, especially because of limited time slots and space. Accepted abstracts will be published in the quarterly peer-reviewed journal Rhodora. -- Nishanta Rajakaruna Professor of Botany Editor-in-Chief, Rhodora Director, College of the Atlantic Herbarium and Carl W. Sharsmith Herbarium Mailing Address: College of the Atlantic 105 Eden Street Bar Harbor, ME 04609 Phone: 207-801-5731 -- Nishanta Rajakaruna Professor of Botany Editor-in-Chief, Rhodora Director, College of the Atlantic Herbarium and Carl W. Sharsmith Herbarium Mailing Address: College of the Atlantic 105 Eden Street Bar Harbor, ME 04609 Phone: 207-801-5731
Re: [ECOLOG-L] humorous papers
Penguin biologists are particularly proud of this contribution: Meyer-Rochow, V. B. and J. Gal. 2003. Pressures produced when penguins pooh - calculations on avian defaecation. Polar Biol. 27:56-58. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00300-003-0563-3 and there is also a letter describing how it came to be: Meyer-Rochow, V. B. and J. Gal. 2006. A Polar biology publication that prevailed: Forces at work when penguins poo. Polar Biol. 29:541-542. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00300-006-0125-6 Michael Schrimpf Stony Brook University On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Kevyn Juneau kjjun...@mtu.edu wrote: McNOLEG, O. L. E. G. The integration of GIS, remote sensing, expert systems and adaptive co-kriging for environmental habitat modeling of the highland haggis using object-oriented, fuzzy-logic and neural-network techniques. *Computers Geosciences* 22.5 (1996): 585-588. ftp://46.43.34.31/users/kami/humour/haggis_paper.pdf On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Alex Wolf alex.w...@mdc.mo.gov wrote: Another paper that's tongue-in-cheek but has serious science at its core: Lozier, J. D., Aniello, P. and Hickerson, M. J. (2009), Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modelling. Journal of Biogeography, 36: 1623-1627. doi: 10./j.1365-2699.2009.02152.x ABSTRACT: The availability of user-friendly software and publicly available biodiversity databases has led to a rapid increase in the use of ecological niche modelling to predict species distributions. A potential source of error in publicly available data that may affect the accuracy of ecological niche models (ENMs), and one that is difficult to correct for, is incorrect (or incomplete) taxonomy. Here we remind researchers of the need for careful evaluation of database records prior to use in modelling, especially when the presence of cryptic species is suspected or many records are based on indirect evidence. To draw attention to this potential problem, we construct ENMs for the North American Sasquatch (i.e. Bigfoot). Specifically, we use a large database of georeferenced putative sightings and footprints for Sasquatch in western North America, demonstrating how convincing environmentally predicted distributions of a taxon's potential range can be generated from questionable site-occurrence data. We compare the distribution of Bigfoot with an ENM for the black bear, Ursus americanus, and suggest that many sightings of this cryptozoid may be cases of mistaken identity. PDF available through Google Scholar. Cheers, Alex Alex Wolf Resource Staff Scientist, Forest Systems Field Station Missouri Department of Conservation 2929 Co. Rd. 618 Ellington, MO 63638 -- Kevyn J. Juneau, Ph.D., Certified Associate Ecologist Department of Biological Sciences 1400 Townsend Drive Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI 49931 KJJuneau(at)MTU.edu http://kevynjuneau.weebly.com/
[ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
[ECOLOG-L] deadline for European Ecological Federation meeting
21-25 September in Rome Theme: Ecology at the Interface abstracts due 31 March early registration due 31 March Do not miss this opportunity: only 4 days are left to submit your contribution through the http://www.ecologyatinterface.eu/registration/index.php/EEF2015/EEF2015/schedConf/cfpsystemhttp://www.ecologyatinterface.eu/registration/index.php/EEF2015/EEF2015/schedConf/cfp and benefit of up to 250 Euro discount for early birds. Should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us at mailto:i...@ecologyatinterface.eui...@ecologyatinterface.eu. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for your attention. Best regards. Chiara Dell'Antoglietta Organizing Committee ROME2015
Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
How can this happen when the editors of the journal invite the reviewers? That's the type of peer review I'm familiar with. I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central, http://www.biomedcentral.com/about puts out 277 journals. That seems like a lot of concentration of power. Martin M. Meiss 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye ino...@umd.edu: I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/ 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to- retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
I thought that editors of scholarly journals only used reviewers that they know by reputation. The suggested reviewer feature sounds like picking a name out of a hat. 2015-03-27 15:51 GMT-04:00 David Mellor mellor.da...@gmail.com: It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation services” that pose on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested reviewer” feature in the submission process to mislead editors into contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog post http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/ manipulation-peer-review/ explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening elsewhere, and that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light, given the potential tarnish it creates. David Mellor Center for Open Science http://centerforopenscience.org (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central, http://www.biomedcentral.com/about puts out 277 journals. That seems like a lot of concentration of power. Martin M. Meiss 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye ino...@umd.edu: I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/ 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to- retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
In some fields the group of investigators is so small it makes conficts of interest virtually impossible to avoid. I have often wondered if a particular lab has had dozens or more graduates how hard it would be to avoid these things. Further, the opportunity to allow something through that is questionable, even if unintentiona is pretty high when the community is small enough a large chunck of qualified reviewers are from teh same group or lab. So much dishonesty in so many areas today. If peope can subconsciously suppress racial and gender groups, why could they not subconsciosly promote or supress people and/or groups of investigators whom they know. I can see this happening in peer review, interview processes, grading, whatever. I am not saying it does happen, just that the large number of subconscious prejudices each of us must be very difficult to entirely suppress. This peer review scandal need not be deliberate, but wow, does it look that way! On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:46 AM, David Inouye ino...@umd.edu wrote: I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/ 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to- retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/ -- Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP Environmental Studies Program Green Mountain College Poultney, Vermont “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.” -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law. 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] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
It is. I don't know the history of how or why that practice came about, or how guilty Biomed Central was of it relative to other publishers. I expect that as workloads for editors increased, it was requested by editors as a way for them to more easily find reviewers. I think this peer-reviewer fraud ring ( http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/science/science-journal-pulls-60-papers-in-peer-review-fraud.html) also rigged the system based on fake reviewers. Biomed Central is barring the use of such suggested reviewers from their automated submission process, but there is nothing preventing an author from continuing to suggest a reviewer in a cover letter to the editor. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: I thought that editors of scholarly journals only used reviewers that they know by reputation. The suggested reviewer feature sounds like picking a name out of a hat. 2015-03-27 15:51 GMT-04:00 David Mellor mellor.da...@gmail.com: It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation services” that pose on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested reviewer” feature in the submission process to mislead editors into contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog post http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/ manipulation-peer-review/ explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening elsewhere, and that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light, given the potential tarnish it creates. David Mellor Center for Open Science http://centerforopenscience.org (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central, http://www.biomedcentral.com/about puts out 277 journals. That seems like a lot of concentration of power. Martin M. Meiss 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye ino...@umd.edu: I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/ 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to- retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
Editors need to vet them for appropriate expertise in the field, and use them carefully and sparsely. Many journals ask the authors for up to five recommended referees. Those arent always the only ones chosen, but in my experience it happens often. On Mar 27, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Judith S. Weis jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu wrote: How can this happen when the editors of the journal invite the reviewers? That's the type of peer review I'm familiar with. I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation services” that pose on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested reviewer” feature in the submission process to mislead editors into contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog post http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/ http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/ explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening elsewhere, and that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light, given the potential tarnish it creates. David Mellor Center for Open Science http://centerforopenscience.org/ (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central, http://www.biomedcentral.com/about puts out 277 journals. That seems like a lot of concentration of power. Martin M. Meiss 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye ino...@umd.edu: I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/ 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to- retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
There was a scientist in South Korea who was suggesting well known individuals to be reviewers, but would put in an email address that he had access to. So while the journal though they were sending it out for peer review they were just sending it to the author over and over again. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 27, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Judith S. Weis jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu wrote: Editors need to vet them for appropriate expertise in the field, and use them carefully and sparsely. Many journals ask the authors for up to five recommended referees. Those aren’t always the only ones chosen, but in my experience it happens often. On Mar 27, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Judith S. Weis jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu wrote: How can this happen when the editors of the journal invite the reviewers? That's the type of peer review I'm familiar with. I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
[ECOLOG-L] Job: meteorologist or ecologist, USFS Northern Research Station
METEOROLOGIST (GS-1340-9/11) OR ECOLOGIST (GS-0408-9/11) USDA FOREST SERVICE NORTHERN RESEARCH STATION About the Position The Northern Research Station is announcing an upcoming vacancy for a Meteorologist (GS-1340-9/11) or Ecologist (GS-0408-9/11) position that will provide science and science support to the Center for Research on Ecosystem Change in the Northern Research Station. The position is a permanent appointment with a full-time tour of duty, stationed in Grand Rapids, MN. Job Description The primary duty will be to operate, maintain, troubleshoot, summarize data and publish papers on the eddy covariance system located at the Bog Lake peatland on the Marcell Experimental Forest. Secondary duties will include support and cooperation with Forest Service and collaborating scientists from universities and other agencies. The individual will supervise and participate in the installation and maintenance of various studies and collection of data including soil, hydrological, and geological data, gas flux and biogeochemical data, and plant data. The individual will determine ecosystem carbon fluxes using gas flux measurements, belowground measurements, climate data and eddy covariance technology. The individual will perform or supervise laboratory preparation of field samples and field data collection. They will insure the integrity of data for a variety of studies by following approved QA/QC procedures. They will summarize and analyze data using a variety of statistical techniques, including ANOVA, regression, and software, including SAS, and Sigma-Plot. The individual will assist scientists in the preparation of manuscripts, proposals, study plans and presentations. They will coordinate the work of technicians, temporary employees, and graduate students and assist with technology transfer including presentations, workshops, and demonstrations. Knowledge Required Substantial knowledge of the technical aspects of measuring carbon fluxes with eddy covariance techniques. Ability to design and organize project objectives and select alternative work processes. The individual must have the ability to train and supervise field crews and laboratory staffs, follow safety and health procedures, and write technical reports and manuscripts. Knowledge of computer functions related to data input, retrieval, analysis of data, and management of resulting datasets is required. The individual must have the ability to operate motor vehicles and other motorized equipment, and to use hand tools and forestry and laboratory instruments. Other Information of Interest · The area of consideration is Government-wide and External DEMO · One position will be advertised · Work will include overnight travel · Basic entry qualifications for this series are a degree in meteorology, ecology, atmospheric sciences, plant physiology, hydrology, soil science, biology, agriculture, natural resource management, chemistry, or related disciplines appropriate to the position, or a combination of education and experience (courses equivalent to a major, plus appropriate experience or additional education). · In addition to meeting the basic entry qualifications, applicants must have specialized experience and/or 2 years of progressively higher level graduate education leading to a masters or equivalent degree · Experience with SAS · Experience with eddy covariance systems · Good written and verbal communication skills are essential · An ability to work both independently and in a team setting is necessary · United States citizenship required The Research Environment The focus of the research program in Grand Rapids is on 1) understanding ecosystem processes and functions at multiple scales; 2) predicting ecosystem responses to disturbance and change; 3) assessing management approaches to address factors that change ecosystems; and 4) evaluating long-term responses to change and management utilizing our experimental forest. We manage the Marcell Experimental Forest, a site of long-term collection of data on hydrology, water chemistry, soil, climate and ecosystem biogeochemical fluxes in upland/peatland watersheds in northern Minnesota. The Grand Rapids Community The community of Grand Rapids is a city of about 8,000 located in the north-central part of Minnesota in the heart of lake country. Grand Rapids has a rich history in logging, iron mining, and year-around recreation. There are more than a million acres of forests and over a thousand lakes in the Grand Rapids area. The city is a regional center for education, recreation, commerce, and culture. The Reif Center for the Performing Arts and the Itasca Community College contribute greatly to the cultural and educational opportunities within the community. The Forestry Sciences Laboratory is located on the
[ECOLOG-L] Field based course in Arctic Plant Ecology - UNIS, Svalbard
Dear ITEXers, Please spread the following information to your students: This summer a field-based course in Arctic Plant Ecology at PhD and Masters levels will be run at UNIS, Svalbard. Course period: 3 July3 August. Application deadline: 15 April. For more information: On UNIS: http://www.unis.no/http://www.unis.no/ Master level course: http://www.unis.no/10_STUDIES/1020_Courses/Arctic_Biology/ab_326.htmhttp://www.unis.no/10_STUDIES/1020_Courses/Arctic_Biology/ab_326.htm PhD level course: http://www.unis.no/10_STUDIES/1020_Courses/Arctic_Biology/ab_826.htmhttp://www.unis.no/10_STUDIES/1020_Courses/Arctic_Biology/ab_826.htm Teachers: Ingibjörg S. Jónsdóttir Terry V. Callaghan Pernille B. Eidesen James M. Speed Isabel Barrio Rene van der Wal Martin A. Mörsdorf Ingibjörg Svala Jónsdóttir --- Professor University of Iceland and the University Centre in Svalbard
[ECOLOG-L] Job: Colorado Riparian Bird Point Count Tech
Job Title: Colorado Riparian Bird Point Count Technician (1) Organization: Colorado State University Location: Piceance Basin, NW Colorado Job Description: Field technician needed early May through July 2015 to assist M.S. graduate student from Colorado State University (CSU) to investigate the effects of an invasive shrub on riparian bird habitat use and food web interactions. Fieldwork is located in the Piceance Basin on Colorado’s western slope. Primary duties will include conducting bird point count surveys during early morning hours, riparian vegetation surveys, mist-netting, bird banding, taking weight and body measurements, fecal sample collection, aging/sexing using a Pyle guide. Additional duties may include assisting with passerine nest searching and monitoring, acoustic bat monitoring using detectors, and terrestrial invertebrate sampling. Applicants must have an interest in avian biology and conservation, strong bird ID skills, and some experience with passerine extraction from mist-nets and banding. Accommodation (likely mobile home or field house) will be provided for the duration of the field season, and the schedule is expected to consist of 10 days of fieldwork with 4 days off in between. A field vehicle will be provided during work hours but applicants may want a personal vehicle for use on days off. Salary will be $1300-1500/month, depending on experience. This position provides the opportunity to work in beautiful riparian areas of western Colorado, contribute to conservation on private lands, enhance field research skill sets, and interact with researchers at CSU, a highly-respected institution for natural resources research. Required Skills: Competitive applicants will possess more than one season of bird survey experience, preferably in western riparian zones as well as riparian vegetation identification and survey skills. An ability to identify western birds by sight and sound, with previous experience estimating detection distances is essential. In addition, applicants must have some experience with passerine extraction from mist-nets and bird banding/processing. Additional Preferred Skills/Qualities: Experience nest searching and monitoring passerine nests, terrestrial invertebrate sampling, and experience using bat detectors. Desirable personal qualities include an ability to take initiative, attention to detail, adaptability, and ability to work long hours and live in a remote field setting. TO APPLY: Please send a letter of interest, resume, and contact information for 3 references in a single PDF document with file name “applicant’s last name_pointcount” to: Lani Stinson (lani.stin...@colostate.edu). Letters should highlight the specific qualifications mentioned in the posting (i.e., point counts, mist- netting/banding, nest monitoring, and vegetation surveys) AND include dates of availability. Applications will be reviewed as received but will not be considered after 31 March 2015. Website: http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/fwcb-home
Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest. When I do, it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious, unbiased review Eric S. Menges Editor, Natural Areas Journal From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [mellor.da...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation services” that pose on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested reviewer” feature in the submission process to mislead editors into contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog post http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/ http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/ explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening elsewhere, and that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light, given the potential tarnish it creates. David Mellor Center for Open Science http://centerforopenscience.org/ (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central, http://www.biomedcentral.com/about puts out 277 journals. That seems like a lot of concentration of power. Martin M. Meiss 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye ino...@umd.edu: I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/ 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to- retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
Journal editor should select reviewers by themselves, and should contact potential reviewers with working affiliations' emails. -原始邮件- 发件人: Adam Eichenwald sma...@mac.com 发送时间: 2015年3月28日 星期六 收件人: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 抄送: 主题: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers There was a scientist in South Korea who was suggesting well known individuals to be reviewers, but would put in an email address that he had access to. So while the journal though they were sending it out for peer review they were just sending it to the author over and over again. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 27, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Judith S. Weis jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu wrote: Editors need to vet them for appropriate expertise in the field, and use them carefully and sparsely. Many journals ask the authors for up to five recommended referees. Those aren’t always the only ones chosen, but in my experience it happens often. On Mar 27, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Judith S. Weis jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu wrote: How can this happen when the editors of the journal invite the reviewers? That's the type of peer review I'm familiar with. I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who have done work that crosses over. For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian larvae in an agronomic landscape. I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one who is versed in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), then maybe a third who does amphibian tox. When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask him/her to recommend someone else if they are unable to do it. This is INCREDIBLY productive and successful. We don't take reviewer recommendations at HCB. I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers too. I'm always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I think is well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some way. It gets really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know a lot of people and you also tick off your fair share. Also, if you are doing research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going to end up communicating with others who do similar stuff. It isn't long, and everyone knows everyone. Malcolm On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric emen...@archbold-station.org wrote: As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest. When I do, it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious, unbiased review Eric S. Menges Editor, Natural Areas Journal From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [ mellor.da...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation services” that pose on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested reviewer” feature in the submission process to mislead editors into contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog post http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/ http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/ explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening elsewhere, and that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light, given the potential tarnish it creates. David Mellor Center for Open Science http://centerforopenscience.org/ (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central, http://www.biomedcentral.com/about puts out 277 journals. That seems like a lot of concentration of power. Martin M. Meiss 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye ino...@umd.edu: I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/ 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to- retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/ -- Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP Environmental Studies Program Green Mountain College Poultney, Vermont “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.” -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law. 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] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
Many journals ask the authors for up to five recommended referees. Those aren’t always the only ones chosen, but in my experience it happens often. On Mar 27, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Judith S. Weis jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu mailto:jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu wrote: How can this happen when the editors of the journal invite the reviewers? That's the type of peer review I'm familiar with. I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may- http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/ Don McKenzie US Forest Service University of Washington d...@uw.edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do reviews these days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to keep looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do reviews don't recommend another potential reviewer. I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who have done work that crosses over. For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian larvae in an agronomic landscape. I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one who is versed in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), then maybe a third who does amphibian tox. When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask him/her to recommend someone else if they are unable to do it. This is INCREDIBLY productive and successful. We don't take reviewer recommendations at HCB. I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers too. I'm always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I think is well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some way. It gets really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know a lot of people and you also tick off your fair share. Also, if you are doing research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going to end up communicating with others who do similar stuff. It isn't long, and everyone knows everyone. Malcolm On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric emen...@archbold-station.org wrote: As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest. When I do, it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious, unbiased review Eric S. Menges Editor, Natural Areas Journal From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [ mellor.da...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers It appears to be an issue with fraudulent âtranslation servicesâ that pose on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the âsuggested reviewerâ feature in the submission process to mislead editors into contacting reviewers who arenât who they claim to be. The BMC blog post http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/ http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/ explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening elsewhere, and that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light, given the potential tarnish it creates. David Mellor Center for Open Science http://centerforopenscience.org/ (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central, http://www.biomedcentral.com/about puts out 277 journals. That seems like a lot of concentration of power. Martin M. Meiss 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye ino...@umd.edu: I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/ 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to- retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/ -- Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP Environmental Studies Program Green Mountain College Poultney, Vermont âNothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.â -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law. 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] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
There is little incentive other than prestige, but then how does that get you any more sleep or time to do research? Probably would help to offer honoraria, like they do for most review panels or invited seminars. Steve On 3/27/15, 10:17 PM, Judith S. Weis jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu wrote: The system is falling apart - so many people decline to do reviews these days (well, maybe for Science or Nature..) that editors have to keep looking for more. And lots of the folks who decline to do reviews don't recommend another potential reviewer. I usually do a Google Scholar search and find 2-3 people who have done work that crosses over. For example, lets say the paper was toxicology of amphibian larvae in an agronomic landscape. I might get one reiewer who is versed in amphibians and one who is versed in ecotox (especially involving agrochemicals), then maybe a third who does amphibian tox. When I solicity the reviewer, I always ask him/her to recommend someone else if they are unable to do it. This is INCREDIBLY productive and successful. We don't take reviewer recommendations at HCB. I always get really flustered when a journal asks for reviewers too. I'm always concerned about the balance between naming someone who I think is well-qualified and someone who is not connected to me in some way. It gets really hard because as a journal editor, you rapidly start to know a lot of people and you also tick off your fair share. Also, if you are doing research in a particular area, it is almost assured you are going to end up communicating with others who do similar stuff. It isn't long, and everyone knows everyone. Malcolm On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Menges, Eric emen...@archbold-station.org wrote: As an editor, I rarely choose reviewers that authors suggest. When I do, it is because I know the person is capable of giving a serious, unbiased review Eric S. Menges Editor, Natural Areas Journal From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of David Mellor [ mellor.da...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:51 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers It appears to be an issue with fraudulent “translation services†that pose on behalf of the foreign language researcher and use the “suggested reviewer†feature in the submission process to mislead editors into contacting reviewers who aren’t who they claim to be. The BMC blog post http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-revi ew/ http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-revi ew/ explains the fraud. My insight is that this could be happening elsewhere, and that BMC is doing the right thing to bring it to light, given the potential tarnish it creates. David Mellor Center for Open Science http://centerforopenscience.org/ (434) 352-1066 @EvoMellor On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if part of the problem is that one publisher, BioMed Central, http://www.biomedcentral.com/about puts out 277 journals. That seems like a lot of concentration of power. Martin M. Meiss 2015-03-27 12:46 GMT-04:00 David Inouye ino...@umd.edu: I hope this hasn't been an issue in ecology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/ 27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to- retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/ -- Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP Environmental Studies Program Green Mountain College Poultney, Vermont “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.†-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law. 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
[ECOLOG-L] humorous papers
Hi all, I have to add this gem to the mix. It's not ecology, but I can't pass it up: Head and neck injury risks in heavy metal: head bangers stuck between rock and a hard bass http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a2825 Introduction Young people at heavy metal concerts often report being dazed and confused, possible symptoms of mild traumatic brain injury. Little formal injury research has been conducted on the world wide phenomenon of head banging, even though case reports indicate the inherent risks in this activity, especially in head and neck injury. Head banging is a violent activity associated with hard rock and various subgenres of heavy metal. Over the past five years hard rock and heavy metal have contributed to about 30% of all record sales in the United States1 and, as of 2002, rock albums have outsold pop albums.2 The second highest selling album of all time is AC/DC’s Back in Black, which has sold about 42 million copies worldwide.3 Two slightly more recent albums, Bon Jovi’s Slippery When Wet and Guns N’ Roses’ Appetite for Destruction, have each sold about 28 million copies.4 5 Though exposure to head banging is enormous, opportunities are present to control this risk—for example, encouraging bands such as AC/DC to play songs like “Moon River” as a substitute for “Highway to Hell”; public awareness campaigns with influential and youth focused musicians, such as Sir Cliff Richard; labelling of music packaging with anti-head banging warnings, like the strategies used with cigarettes; training; and personal protective equipment. -- Geosciences and Environmental Change Science Center U.S. Geological Survey Denver Federal Center, Bldg 25, room 1719, MS 980 Denver, Co. 80225 303-236-5369 https://profile.usgs.gov/jediffendorfer
[ECOLOG-L] predatory journals
I frequently get messages like this from journals I've never heard of. The stilted English writing suggests it's not written by an American, yet the address is given as Austin TX. Don't know if its strictly predatory but it raises suspicions. Original Message Subject: Aquaculture and Research-Manuscript Request From:Editor - Aquaculture and Research aquacult...@jacobspublishers.us Date:Fri, March 27, 2015 6:23 pm To: jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu -- Description: Banner-Aquaculture http://www.jacobspublishers.com/index.php Jacobs Publishers -Jacobs Journal of Aquaculture and Research http://www.jacobspublishers.com/index.php/journal-of-aquaculture-and-resear ch-home http://www.jacobspublishers.com/index.php/order-i-to-r/radiation-oncology/a quaculture-and-research Dear Dr. Judith S Weis, Warm greetings from Jacobs Publishers Quality research and its access are important to Scientific Community! We, Jacobs Publishers are committed in association with the research community and our motto is to serve the scientific and research community. Quality research and its access is an important aspect of scientific community and ours is an open access publishing group publishes peer reviewed articles in various aspects like Medical, Life Sciences, Pharma, Chemistry and Engineering. We have a pioneered journal called Jacobs Journal of Aquaculture and Research in which, Articles/Manuscripts are run through a detailed review by our eminent panel of Editorial Board who spend their valuable time to review these articles. The mission of our Journal is to equip with authentic information on the current development in the form of review articles, case reports, brief communications etc., to Aquaculture research. Kindly go through the link below for clear and detailed information regarding author guidelines http://www.jacobspublishers.com/index.php/author-guidelines-in-foremostlinks You may submit your valuable research with the following link. http://www.jacobspublishers.com/index.php/journal-of-aquaculture-and-researc hsubmit-manuscript We request the authors to pay 499 USD as article processing charges, after the completion of Peer Review process and accepted by our esteemed editorial board members. Looking forward for a fruitful scientific relationship! Thanking you, Neil Jacobson Jacobs Journal of Aquaculture and Research Jacobs Publishers 900 Great Hills Trail # 150 w Austin, Texas 78759(Travis County) E-mail: aquaculture mailto:aquacult...@jacobspublishers.org @jacobspublishers.org *Note: If you are not interested to participate, please mailto:unsubscr...@jacobspublishers.info?subject=Unsubscribe Unsubscribe
