Ideas in Ecology and Evolution最新文献

{"title":"Defining clonality and individuals in plant evolution","authors":"Root Gorelick","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2014.17.C","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2014.17.C","url":null,"abstract":"Aarssen (2014) proposes estimating fitness in clonal and aclonal seed plants by defining an individual as a rooted-unit, which he defines by the root-to-shoot transition in anatomy of the stele. This approach may be helpful for some seed plant taxa, maybe even most seed plants, because of being much more readily operational than most other definitions of individuals. However, the rooted-unit approach seems to falter for many weird plants, such as those with anomalous root and shoot anatomy and plants that can reproduce clonally from leaves or apomictic seeds. Another problem with using rooted-units to circumscribe individuals is the implicit assumption that mitosis constrains genetic variance and meiosis increases genetic variance, when the exact opposite may be true. Although definitions of individuals are arbitrary, there may soon be sufficient data to ascertain which definitions are most useful, i.e. which definitions of individuals help unify evolutionary theory.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70234393","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Practical guidance for early career researchers dealing with tardy or unresponsive co-authors","authors":"S. Cooke","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2014.7.15.E","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.15.E","url":null,"abstract":"Everyone that has experience in academic publishing is \u0000all too familiar with the \"tardy co-author\"—or worse— \u0000one that is completely unresponsive.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"7 1","pages":"73-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.15.E","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70235083","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"On whimsy, jokes, and beauty: can scientific writing be enjoyed?","authors":"S. Heard","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2014.7.14.F","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.14.F","url":null,"abstract":"While scientists are often exhorted to write better, it isn’t entirely obvious what “better” means. It’s uncontroversial that good scientific writing is clear, with the reader’s understanding as effortless as possible. Unsettled, and largely undiscussed, is the question of whether our goal of clarity precludes us from making our writing enjoyable by incorporating touches of whimsy, humanity, humour, and beauty. I offer examples of scientific writing that offers pleasure, drawing from ecology and evolution and from other natural sciences, and I argue that enjoyable writing can help recruit readers to a paper and retain them as they read. I document resistance to this idea in the scientific community, and consider the objections (well grounded and not) that may lie behind this resistance. I close by recommending that we include touches of whimsy and beauty in our own writing, and also that we work to encourage such touches in the writing of others.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.14.F","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70234990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reject, Revise, and Resubmit — Please…","authors":"S. Cooke","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2014.7.13.E","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.13.E","url":null,"abstract":"Seriously—PLEASE! Journals want us to revise and resubmit papers that are rejected because it benefits them in two specific ways. First, it gives the illusion that the journals are highly selective by rejecting material and then accepting it later as a new submission. The rejection rate increases which increases prestige in some twisted way which also seems to attract papers in greater numbers. Indeed, Wardle (2012) notes that journal acceptance rates in ecology and evolution are “plummeting”. Could that be an artefact of excessive use of “reject, revise and resubmit”? Second, it skews the statistics for time between submission and both first and final editorial decision. Again, this information is shared with potential authors, often via journal advertising material, thus attracting authors given the apparent rapidity in which one can expect their paper to be handled. I submit that the often used editorial decision to “revise and resubmit” does nothing but feed an already broken system (McCook 2006, Lortie 2013). It is my assertion that in most cases “revise and resubmit” is simply a dramatic version of “major revisions.” “Major revisions” does not imply that a paper will eventually be accepted. As an author, I do not treat a paper that has been given the moniker of “revise and resubmit” any differently than one needing “major revisions.” One issue with “revise and resubmit” is that there is often no specific space or mechanism by which to upload and share the list of revisions with potential referees. That is, because it is treated as a new submission, the referees may not have access to the article history, meaning that the efforts taken by authors to document changes are somewhat moot, and time of both authors and referees can be wasted (if, for example, an author rebuts a criticism but the paper is again criticized by the same or a new referee for the same issue). This of course assumes that a paper that is revised and resubmitted actually goes to peer review. As a co-author, I recently had a paper “rejected with invitation to resubmit” with it being explicitly noted by the editor that it was a “rapid publication journal.” What does that mean? Well, in our case, it meant that the revised (new) manuscript was not sent for peer review and was simply accepted 4 days later. On the paper, it clearly shows that the paper was received on December 13 th and accepted on December 17 th . We never received any reviews, nor were required to respond to any science-based editorial queries (we did have to change a figure because photo quality was insufficient). So—I would argue that another statistic that should be tracked is the number of submissions that are accepted without being sent for external peer review. Using the same hokey accounting system of the journal to rack up extra rejections, I would knock them down for papers accepted without peer review. Isn’t real peer review by external experts the foundation for our modern peer review system (Rowlan","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.13.E","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70234876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Zero tolerance to plagiarism will kill inspiration: a critique for academic meritocracy","authors":"H. H. Bruun","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2014.7.8.C","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.8.C","url":null,"abstract":"Meritocratic justice is important, but not everything that matters. The long-term advancement of science depends heavily on scientists’ willingness to generously share their ideas. Only ideas with little meaning to others are truly private.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.8.C","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70235490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Citation, credit, and the ambiguous nature of creative science—a wider perspective for Bruun's views","authors":"D. Wilkinson","doi":"10.4033/IEE.V7I1.5267","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.V7I1.5267","url":null,"abstract":"Hans Henrik Bruun (2014) argues that, although assigning credit to past work is important, it is not something that can easily be set about with formal rules—leading to charges of plagiarism if the rules are not followed to the letter. He goes further to suggest that such strict rules may actually stifle creative science and that, in this context, a much greater problem may be the large number of so-called ‘original’ research papers that do no more than reproduce previous findings in new settings (I have much sympathy with this last point, while noting that such studies are also crucial to the meta analysis approach to ecological questions!). Bruun (2014) develops his ideas in the context of ecological examples—here I try to provide a brief, wider context for the discussion drawing on several different areas of science from astronomy to molecular biology. A scientist’s reputation stands or falls on conceiving new ideas or collecting original data. Although there may be a considerable satisfaction in just working in an area of personal fascination irrespective of any credit (this is certainly true of many ecologists with a natural history background), credit does matter. One of the more interesting discussions of this is actually fictional—the novel The Bourbaki gambit by chemist turned novelist and playwright Carl Djerassi (1994). In the novel, a group of late career and somewhat marginalised scientists group together to have fun publishing under a single pseudonym. This scheme falls apart when they discover something truly important (in this alternative history novel, they invent PCR) and suddenly personal priority really matters! If reputation matters so much then surely a rigorous approach to citation matters too (indeed I believe it does but, as with Bruun, I don’t see it as the most important thing in the long term). There is a very practical problem with an insistence on citing the first original source—it’s often completely ambiguous what you should be citing! Most ideas in science emerge over time and don’t suddenly appear in the literature in their final form. The obvious example for the readership of an ecology and evolution journal being the very similar evolutionary ideas of Darwin and Wallace—which do you cite? In fact, it’s more complex than that, as a trawl through the pre-1858 literature can produce many brief discussions that seem to have at least part of the idea of natural selection, and there is a huge pre-Darwinian literature on the general idea of evolution. Should you cite them all? However, Darwin’s (1859) book not only introduced a range of novel theories but made them prominent. Indeed, in an interesting recent counterfactual history, Bowler (2013) suggests that without this book (i.e., if Darwin had drowned at sea in 1832), even allowing for Wallace’s work, modern evolutionary ideas would have emerged much more slowly than was the case in the real 19 th","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70236893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Western and Indigenous sciences: colonial heritage, epistemological status, and contribution of a cross-cultural dialogue","authors":"Marie-Ève Drouin-Gagné","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2014.7.12.C","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.12.C","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70234813","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Indigenous sciences are not pseudoscience","authors":"Root Gorelick","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2014.7.11.C","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.11.C","url":null,"abstract":"Given how difficult it is to define science, it is surprising how readily many people consider Indigenous sciences to be pseudoscience. I review definitions of indigenous science , as well as science and pseudoscience . I then proffer that either western or indigenous science is any broadly Bayesian undertaking, i.e. testing and updating hypotheses (prior and posterior probabilities) based on observed data. Western and indigenous sciences simply have different priors, ask different questions, and sometimes use different data, hence they may make very different predictions about very different phenomena. Indigenous sciences seem to have no more myth than do western sciences. I provide examples of where western and indigenous sciences may provide complementary approaches for understanding ecology and evolution.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70234187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How Stephen Jay Gould wrote Macbeth—Not giving credit where it's due: lazy referencing and ignoring precedence","authors":"S. Leather","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2014.7.9.C","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.9.C","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70235538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Four Pillars of Scholarly Publishing: The Future and a Foundation","authors":"Jarrett E. K. Byrnes, E. Baskerville, B. Caron, C. Neylon, C. Tenopir, M. Schildhauer, A. Budden, L. Aarssen, C. Lortie","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2014.7.7.F","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.7.F","url":null,"abstract":"Scholarly publishing has embraced electronic distribution in many respects, but the tools available through the Internet and other advancing technologies have profound implications for scholarly communication beyond dissemination. We argue that to best serve science, the process of scholarly communication must embrace these advances and evolve. Here, we consider the current state of the process in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB) and propose directions for this evolution and potential change. We identify four pillars for the future of scientific communication: (1) an ecosystem of scholarly products, (2) immediate and open access, (3) open peer review, and (4) full recognition for participating in the process. These four pillars will guide the development of better tools and practices for discovering and sharing scientific knowledge in a modern networked world. The current traditional scholarly publishing model arose in the 1600s, and though it has served its purpose admirably and well, it is time to move forward by embracing open, rapid transparent publication and review.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.7.F","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70235425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}