A subjective discussion of the meanings of “subjective” and “objective”
Scientists are objective. Personal bias is not acceptable and interpretation that is subject to the observer is frowned upon. The above statement is the ideal to which we presumably strive to attain as scientists. The reality that we construct in our research is independent of the person doing the research. So, when someone performs some […]
Why study duck penises?
If you ever needed an eloquent argument for funding basic science, please read this excellent editorial by Patricia Brennan. A particular highlight: Investment in the NSF [National Science Foundation, the U.S. government agency that funds scientific research] is just over $20 per year per person, while it takes upward of $2,000 per year per person […]
Scientists need “adequate communication skills”
…we should focus on equipping Earth scientists with adequate communication skills, and heighten their understanding of how their words … will be perceived. So says the Editorial “Communication at Risk” in the February 2013 issue of Nature Geoscience about the L’Aquila earthquake trial. I couldn’t agree more. Thanks to Martin Gallagher for pointing out this […]
Prescient Poem about Writing for Publication
April 2, 2013 Filed under Blog, Featured, Publishing
Writing for the AMS [American Meteorological Society] George W. Mindling Official in Charge, Weather Bureau Office Atlanta, Georgia, March 29, 1939 Did you ever write a paper for the AMS In a Weather Bureau office without great distress While the sky was dark and gloomy with a threat of coming rain And the phone was […]
The Golden Rule of Reviewing
The Golden Rule If you submit N papers per year, you should perform 2N to 3N per year. It is only the right thing to do. If you impose a submission onto the peer-reviewing system, then you owe it to the system to perform two or three reviews to make up for it. The peer-reviewing […]
New American Meteorological Society Author’s Resource Center
March 29, 2013 Filed under Blog, Featured, Publishing
The American Meteorological Society has redesigned its web site. One of the important changes is a much more clear presentation of the journals and the requirements for new submissions. By reading these pages more carefully, authors can avoid unnecessary delays after submission.
Should quality peer reviewers be recognized by the journal?
March 23, 2013 Filed under Blog, Featured, Publishing, Reviewing
I came across this web post and thought this Editor’s idea for recognizing the top 8% of reviewers was a pretty good idea. I admit it might be some work to implement, but the Editor had a formula to do it, reducing the work involved. I am a big fan of this idea for several […]
Is it OK to mentor someone who is writing a peer review?
March 15, 2013 Filed under Blog, Featured, Publishing, Reviewing, Uncategorized
Brian Curran asks: I would like to hear your thoughts regarding the review process and young (or inexperienced) reviewers. I’ve reviewed just a handful of manuscripts, so it’s safe to say I’m inexperienced. Having a mentor or two guiding us relatively inexperienced reviewers through the process might prove to be beneficial and could serve to […]
An example of why hyphens are necessary
The following is an excerpt from an email sent to staff at the University of Manchester. As part of the University’s commitment to creating change in gender equality across the University we are running a half day unconscious bias training session focussed on recruitment and promotion. The following is how it should have been punctuated […]
Reviewer wants “media-friendly schematic”
This comment appeared in a review of a paper for which I am serving as Editor. “I suggest creating a media-friendly schematic showing the basic conclusions of how ….” Given all the recent publicity about …, I believe this paper will attract media interest, and a schematic like this will be useful for explaining the […]
