Runts of the Litter
Sometimes, I page back through my Web of Science list of pubs to the minimal citations range. I love all of my papers of course, and feel a little sorry for the ones that never garnered much...
View ArticleCompletely uncontroversial graph preferences
I am sure that nobody has any opinions whatsoever on using the placement of significance symbols to...err....emphasize..... the magnitude of the effect. Haphazardly placed asterisks on graphs bugs the...
View ArticlePublisher wants to take journal Open Access
Someone forwarded me what appears to be credible evidence that Wiley is considering taking Addiction Biology Open Access. To the tune of $2,500 per article. At present this title has no page charges...
View ArticleEpisode IV: The completerer
Remember when it was possible to publish a four-part series on one "complete study"? https://t.co/f4wNgpl4lK — Drug Monkey (@drugmonkeyblog) December 8, 2015 good times, good times. of course sometimes...
View ArticleOnly suckers pay attention to journal length limits
I can't believe I have never blogged this issue. @Namnezia @andpru @bradleyvoytek @schoppik wow never had that out of ~400 papers. Had to cut back after "accept in principle " often — Zenbrain...
View ArticleWhat is a scientific "observation"?
Reference to this https://t.co/hc9YYH8Myr popped up on the Twitter recently. So what constitutes an "observation" to you? To me, I think I'd need the usual minimum group size, say N=8, and at least two...
View ArticleWhat is "neuroscience"?
At the end of December when everyone was out of the lab on vacation the Journal of Neuroscience twitterers ran an episode of Ask Me Anything, Neuroscience. I had responded to an earlier teaser on this...
View ArticleManaging your CV and why pre-print waccaloons should be ignored
For whatever reasons I was thinking of at the time I was motivated to twttr this: Periodic reminder to publish. If you don't have manuscripts under first review by April... 2016 pub year is already...
View ArticleThought of the Day
Dear Editor of Journal, I find it interesting to review the manuscripts of ours that you have rejected on impact and quality grounds* over the past several years. We quite naturally found publication...
View ArticleAppealing manuscript rejections
This is going to be another one of those posts where we mix up what should be so, what is so and what is best for the individual scientist's career. Our good blog friend iBAM was musing about reading a...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Repost: If you are going to talk about "tiers", then you'd better own that
We have been talking about the scientific journal ecosphere in the context of Michael Eisen's push to get more biomedical scientists to use pre-print servers to publicize their work prior to...
View ArticlePriority
I am working up a serious antipathy to the notion of scientific priority, spurred most recently by the #ASAPbio conference and the associated fervent promotion of pre-print deposit of scientific...
View ArticleManuscript acceptance based on perceived capability of the laboratory
Dave asked: I think about it primarily in the form of career stage representation, as always. I like to get reviewed by people who understand what it means to me to request multiple additional...
View ArticleBlooding the trainees
In that most English of pastimes, fox hunting, the noobs are smeared about the face with the blood of the poor unfortunate fox after dismembering by hound has been achieved. I surmise the goal is to...
View ArticleWhen reviewers can't relinquish their bone
Had an interesting category of thing happen on peer review of our work recently. It was the species of reviewer objection where they know they can't lay a glove on you but they just can't stop...
View ArticlePLoS Has Angered the PastramiMachine!!!!
@pastramimachine is WICKED PISSED! PLoS is running a huge profit these days. They took in $47.1MM in revenue in 2014, netting $10MM. This is known,https://t.co/ciQtoWy8az 9/40 — Andrew Kern...
View ArticleA new way to publish your dataset #OA waccaloons!
Elsevier has a new ....journal? I guess that is what it is. Data in Brief From the author guidelines: Data in Brief provides a way for researchers to easily share and reuse each other's datasets by...
View ArticleStrategic advice
Reminder for when you are submitting your manuscript to a dump journal. Many of the people involved with what you consider to be a dump journal* for your work may not see it as quite so lowly a venue...
View ArticleBias at work
A piece in Vox summarizes a study from Nextions showing that lawyers are more critical of a brief written by an African-American. I immediately thought of scientific manuscript review and the...
View ArticleRevise After Rejection
This mantra, provided by all good science supervisor types including my mentors, cannot be repeated too often. ProTip:Just because you resubmit to a new journal doesn't mean it will be a new reviewer!...
View Article
