Posts

Posted on

Twitter JAM

I just returned home last night after spending a few days in Edmonton at the Joint Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of Canada and the Entomological Society of Alberta. It was a well-organized meeting with lots of great talks and posters. And, of course, lots of time to reconnect with colleagues from other universities.

A number of entomologists at the meeting, including myself, have Twitter accounts, so we “live tweeted” some of the sessions that we attended. The conference hashtag was #ESCJAM2012, in case you want to take a look at the Twitter record of the event.

From my perspective, live conference tweeting was generally a positive experience, although I say that with a few caveats. Here are my brief thoughts on the Twitter JAM:

1. I enjoyed being able to read about what was going on in other concurrent sessions. My fairly packed schedule this year did not give me much leeway to move from session to session. With so many concurrent sessions, I would have ended up missing interesting talks regardless. So it was good to have at least a taste of what was going on elsewhere. Some of the conference tweets encouraged me to talk to others about research presentations that I didn’t get to attend.

2. I can imagine how this practice is useful for professional and citizen scientists who are not able to attend a meeting. I know that if I were not at the #ESCJAM2012, I would have been following along from my office desk. I plan to virtually attend conferences like this in the future.

3. I noticed that live tweeting can be distracting in a number of ways. First, I often worried that I was causing distraction to neighbors when I would pull out my iPad to compose and send a tweet during a talk. Although I tried to sequester myself near the back edges of rooms (not great for face-to-face networking), I would sometimes get glances when my iPad lit up. Second, the act of composing and sending a tweet distracted me for a few moments from what was going on up front. There were a few times that I knew that I had missed an important point. And third, I know that a few of my followers found the stream of insect tweets to be a bit of a hassle. None of these are insurmountable, but all are issues that we need to be aware of.

4. Some tweets are better than others, including tweets at a scientific conference. Was every one of my tweets useful? I doubt it. Did every one of my tweets fairly represent the talk that I was listening to? Is that even possible in 140 characters? Obviously not. As Marshall McLuhan famously intoned, the medium is the message. Ultimately, is Twitter the best medium for science?

5. To expand on point #4, the best tweets were the ones that contained added value. A great example of this was a “toy” built by David Shorthouse that “caught” tweets with the #ESCJAM2012 hashtag and a species name and then pulled up a bunch of related references.

This is but one example of how Twitter can, in fact, punch above its 140 character weight.

In a much less technical fashion, in one or two instances I dug up new or classic papers related to a presentation and provided the URL(s) in a tweet.

Of course, that whole process took even longer than a regular tweet because I had my nose buried in Google Scholar; so we’re back at point #2. Some form of automation, perhaps similar to that also envisioned by David, could do what I did more effectively without me actually having to poke away at my iPad while only partly paying attention to someone who spent a lot of time putting together a good presentation.

6. Science is becoming more and more open, and that is a good thing. Journal articles and conferences were originally intended to increase the flow of information, ideas, and data. For many, many years both have done just that. But the web-connected world means that those vehicles don’t always do that as well as they used to in their fully traditional form; nor do they do it as well as they could considering the available technology. Just as paywalls at journal sites act to slow the flow of information compared to innovative open access options, conference travel and fees represent a paywall as well. We now have the technology to tear down those conference walls so that all of our colleagues and the general public can benefit and build on our ideas. Twitter might be part of the paywall wrecking crew, at least in the near term.

7. What if each session at a conference had a designated tweeter (DT)? Sessions already have a moderator and a projectionist, and I can imagine adding a DT to that mix. Each DT in each concurrent session would tweet into one unified conference account (e.g. @ESCJAM2012). Each session would have its own separate hashtag (e.g. #ESCforestry, #ESCbiodiversity, #ESCevolution, #ESCecology). The choice of DT for a session would be based on their interest and expertise in order to make the tweets as relevant as possible. In other words, thought would go into the choice of a session DT; the DT wouldn’t necessarily be the first available volunteer Others in the sessions would be encouraged to participate as well, but general participants would not feel like the tweeting burden was on them. General participants could maintain good focus – why even meet in person if your nose is in your device half of the time? – and could tweet from time-to-time if they felt a reason or had the expertise add value to the online conversation. But whatever the general participants decided to do, the session would be broadcast in an effective manner by an engaged and expert DT.

Do you have other thoughts on this practice? Where do you see this going in the future? Is live tweeting simply a road stop on the way to standardized full broadcasts of conferences? What, if anything, does tweeting bring to the table that is missing from face-to-face interaction or that couldn’t be realized through other non-electronic means? What hesitations to you have about this practice? How has live tweeting been a benefit to you or to others who you know?

Live tweeting, or something like it, seems to be the direction that we’re heading. It’s time for some frank discussion about the best ways to make scientific conferences more open to all. So tweet away!

Posted on

Ancient hitch hikers

Any red-blooded Canadian of my approximate vintage will fondly remember reading Owl magazine (still being published!) as a kid. One of the monthly features in Owl was the “Mighty Mites.” The Mites were a group of three siblings who had the ability to shrink down to any size. They used those powers to investigate the natural world around them. I don’t remember too many of the episodes anymore, but I do recall a time when they took a wild ride on a collembolan, also known as a springtail. Since then I’ve always been interested in springtails, which are small, six-legged arthropods that are likely closely allied with insects. The Tree of Life website notes that springtails “…are probably the most abundant hexapods on Earth, with up to 250,000,000 individuals per square (sic) acre.” So, if you haven’t encountered one in your travels, it’s only because you aren’t looking.

As springtail riders, the Mighty Mites were doing what many other small creatures (including real mites) do to get around – specifically, they were being phoretic. Phoresy is when one organism hitches a ride on another organism without affecting the fitness of the organism providing the transportation.

Another group of arthropods that I’ve always been interested in are the Ephemeroptera, more commonly known as mayflies. Mayflies live most of their life cycle as aquatic nymphs in lakes and streams. Most people who spend time outdoors are familiar with large “hatches” of mayflies in the warm months of the year when myriad adult insects emerge from the water in coordinated mating dances. Among the fascinating traits common to mayflies is the fact that the adults don’t feed. In fact, their reduced mouthparts have no apparent function. Mayflies make for good trout food, and fly fishers have always worked to imitate various mayfly life stages to catch fish. The fly fishing angle – no pun intended – also partly explains my personal interest in mayflies.

Because of their life cycle traits – nymphs being restricted to the body of water in which they were hatched, and adults living only for a very short time, mainly to mate – the general view has been that mayflies really do not disperse much beyond nearby bodies of water, or perhaps along a stream course. Mayfly diversity and distribution have been explained as mainly an artifact of past continental drift. However, that view is changing, as there is evidence of at least some mayfly diversification being due to the insects somehow crossing large bodies of water.

So, mayfly dispersal and diversification is still at least partially an interesting riddle to be completely solved. And, it turns out, so is springtail dispersal. Springtails are often among the first organisms to colonize newly formed islands. How they get there has been a topic of discussion and research. And now that discussion has picked up steam because it turns out that the lives of mayflies and springtails came together in the past and may still do so today.

In a paper (Open Access) published in PLoS ONE David Penney and colleagues describe an intriguing amber fossil in which a springtail was entrapped hitched onto a mayfly via clasped antennae. The authors make a strong case for the fact that the paired fossils are not simply a chance occurrence. Among the arguments are the location of the springtail on the mayfly body; the fact that the clasped antennae are similar to those seen in an other case of fossilized collembolans hitching a ride on another arthropod (Opiliones, also known as daddy-longlegs or harvestmen, see reference in the Penney et al. 2012 PLoS ONE paper); and the lack of other springtails appearing in the sample.

This one find brings up a whole host of questions, many of which the authors suggest in their paper. For instance:

  • if we see this behavior manifested in ancient fossils, is it also happening today and why haven’t we noticed it?
  • why would springtails be adapted to hitch rides on such short-lived species that seemingly rarely travel any substantial distance?

and to that, I’d also add:

  • if we don’t see this behavior today, was there something about ancient mayfly life history or behaviors that made this association more likely? Or perhaps do those ancient mayfly traits also exist today, but we still haven’t noticed them?

Fossil evidence often makes scientists stop to consider the present day, and this is no exception to that rule. In fact, it is a great example of one field of science (entomological paleontology) passing questions on to other fields (e.g. taxonomy, animal behavior, and biogeography).

So, next summer when you see a perched mayfly minding its own business, maybe you should sneak up on it to see if it has any guests along for the ride.

ResearchBlogging.org

Penney, D., McNeil, A., Green, D., Bradley, R., Jepson, J., Withers, P., & Preziosi, R. (2012). Ancient Ephemeroptera–Collembola Symbiosis Fossilized in Amber Predicts Contemporary Phoretic Associations PLoS ONE, 7 (10) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047651

Posted on

The rise of biological preprints

Although I’m not particularly long-in-the-tooth, for my entire scientific life I have known that publishers (at least in my field) do not accept papers that have been published elsewhere. And while workers in fields like mathematics and physics have long been able to post preprints of their work prior to peer review and subsequent publication in a journal, researchers in the biological sciences have generally not been allowed to do that. This is because most, if not all, journals that accept biological research manuscripts have historically considered posting a preprint as prior publication. And papers that have been previously published are, rightly, persona non grata in reputable journals.

This “prior publication” attitude toward preprints is a pity because such posting has many upsides (outlined in detail here and here and here) and very few downsides. As an editor of a small journal, and a regular reviewer for a large number of other journals in my field, I can attest to the fact that posting to such a service, in which members of the community can comment and critique an article prior to review, would have helped to strengthen just about every manuscript that has ever come across my desktop.

Some of the biggest advantages of preprint posting that I can see are:

Increased community involvement in the scientific process: Scientists at all levels would be able to take part in reading, processing, and commenting on others’ work. Amateurs would also have access to the process and could provide their often-valuable input as well. That would build community, connections, and collaborations. And that would, in turn, help to strengthen and improve the scientific endeavor in general.

Providing authors with valuable feedback and allowing them to improve their work prior to a formal review: As an editor and reviewer I understand quite intimately the (generally thankless) time and effort that it takes to process an article from first submission to final publication. As an author, I know what it feels like to have the “reject” button pressed on a study that I have invested blood and sweat into. In both cases, prior thoughtful advice and critique from the larger community would help to make the formal process smoother.

Results become visible and public more rapidly: Again, as an editor, I know how long it can take for a paper to move from submission to publication. While some traditional journals have done their best to speed things along in recent years, we all have stories of papers that have languished for eons on some editor’s or reviewer’s desk, holding up the publication of the work for even years. Preprint posting does an end-around, allowing the work to be seen immediately and reducing the irritation that slow processing by a journal might cause. The rest of the scientific community would have access to results that may improve research in other labs or even other fields prior to official acceptance and formal publication.

Less fear about being scooped: I’m thankful that my area of biology generally moves at merely a moderate clip. I’m also thankful that, in general, colleagues in my field are much more willing and eager to collaborate than to compete. However, I’m fully aware that not all fields are like this. In those fields, researchers rightly worry about another lab beating them to the punch. Preprint posting, as it is fully public, would give a researcher a claim to precedence that could be fully validated as necessary. Personally, I see this is the least important of the reasons for posting to a preprint server. But I understand that it is a consideration for many.

In the last little while many major publishers have changed their tune on this. Most recently that included the stable of journals held by the Ecological Society of America. In addition, a new kid on the block, PeerJ, is going to run a preprint service as a part of its overall open access journal offering. This is a trend that is being welcomed by many in the field. And it’s one more example of how scientific publishing is necessarily changing – I think for the better – as it is stretched by new technologies and concomitant new ways of doing things.

Posted on

Whither peer review?

If you’ve been working in science long enough to have published at least one or two papers, you are already well-acquainted with certain aspects of the process:

  • Our current system of anonymous peer review has been a resounding success in terms of furthering the scientific endeavor.
  • Anonymous peer review has been around for a long time now and has carved itself a firm niche within academic culture.
  • A good reviewer is worth their weight in gold (or ink?). Their suggestions, even when graciously rejecting your article, can be used to strengthen the work for eventual publication.
  • Thankfully, most reviewers are good reviewers. Most take the time to carefully and thoughtfully train their lens of critical expertise on the submissions that they receive. In most cases, the eventual published products benefit from the (usually mainly unrewarded) referee’s effort.
  • A poor reviewer, on the other hand, is one of the most aggravating people that you will ever encounter. Poor reviewers take many forms. There are the ones that seem to have not read your paper in the first place and ask questions about things that are explicitly mentioned in your submission. There are those who seem to have an agenda, either scientific or otherwise, and who wear that agenda on their lab coat sleeve. And there are those who obviously don’t have the time or inclination to give a proper review and so either cursorily reject (usually) or accept your paper but who offer no helpful advice in their five-sentence paragraph to the editor. There is no real recourse for response; no real opportunity for dialogue. The review is the review is the review. Good, bad, ugly, or very ugly.
  • The system can be slow, not necessarily because of careful consideration by reviewers, but simply because a manuscript can sit for weeks or months on someone’s desk before they get reminded the seventeenth and final time by the journal editor to complete the review.
  • No one has ever received tenure or promotion on the basis of their careful and fair reviews of others’ articles. Conducting reviews is vital to the ongoing work of science,  but is a generally thankless job.

There are any number of peer review horror stories out there. Some of them are real. Some of them stem from the fact that nobody likes to get their work rejected. So it’s tempting to ascribe villainous motives to the anonymous reviewer(s) who stopped your article in its tracks. It is often hard to differentiate a legitimate beef from sour grapes.

Sir Winston Churchill is reputed to have said, “(i)t has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” And the same might be said for anonymous peer review. The fact of the matter is that peer review has served science well and continues to do so to this day. But that doesn’t mean that the current system is the pinnacle accomplishment of the scientific publishing process. Life evolves. Culture evolves. Technology evolves.

To stretch the evolutionary analogy, are we witnessing something akin to directional selective pressure on the anonymous peer review process? If so, where is the process being pushed? Are there better forms of reviewing that we have not yet tried because, until recently, our technology would not permit them? As technology changes, will peer review also change and become better – both for the scientists involved and for the furthering of our scientific knowledge in general?

Along with the recent discussion about more open science  and more “crowd” involvement in the process, we are also hearing some interesting ideas about changes to the review process. One such idea was recently presented by James Rosindell and Will Pearse at the PLoS Biologue blog:

Peer review is an essential part of science, but there are problems with the current system. Despite considerable effort on the part of reviewers and editors it remains difficult to obtain high quality, thoughtful and unbiased reviews, and reviewers are not sufficiently rewarded for their efforts. The process also takes a lot of time for editors, reviewers and authors.

And their solution:

We propose a new system for peer review. Submitted manuscripts are made immediately available online. Commissioned and/or voluntary reviews would appear online shortly afterwards. The agreement or disagreement of other interested scientists and reviewers are automatically tallied, so editors have a survey of general opinion, as well as full reviews, to inform their decisions.

…

In our proposed system, users would log into the system and get the opportunity to vote once for each article (or reviewers comment), thereby moving it up or down the rankings. Access could be restricted to those within the academic world or even within an appropriate discipline, so only appropriately qualified individuals could influence the rankings. The publication models of established journals would be preserved, as full publication of an article can still take place once the journal is satisfied with the scientific community’s reception of the work.

There are certainly attractive elements to this idea. First, of course, is the idea of online publication of what amounts to being a preprint. This gives the authors official priority and it gets the results out to the community as soon as possible. It also allows some semblance of “democratization” as the review process would no longer be a one-way street. And, of course, it forces reviewers to be responsible for their comments and decisions; the lack of such accountability being one of the biggest issues with the system of anonymous peer review.Referees would also receive explicit credit for their good, and not-so-good, reviews. A great reviewing track record may be the sort of thing that could actually be rewarded within the academy. There would be a real incentive to conduct good reviews.

However, I have concerns as well. Just as with “liking” on Facebook, this has the potential to become a popularity contest. And science is not about popularity. It is about truth. And truth can come from unpopular sources. There is also the likelihood that some researchers in highly competitive fields will only sign on to such a system with extreme reluctance due to the fear of being scooped.

Beyond that, would already overworked researchers really take quality time to thoughtfully comment on preprints? And, would there be ways to game the system, analogous to people trying to increase their search engine rankings? Finally, what about small and boutique journals? The authors of the new peer review proposal envision a marketplace where editors bid for articles within the ranking system. As the editor of a small, regional journal, I am worried about what would happen to journals like the one that I oversee. Would we be able to win bids for quality papers? Or would we get lost in the shuffle after over 100 years of service to the scientific community?

As with the shifts that are occurring with the move toward open access and away from impact factors, I am positive that peer review will also have to change. And it’s good to see that people are thinking about how those changes will come about. Hopefully some of the various concerns with the intended and unintended consequences of changing the system will also be thoughtfully considered. There’s nothing wrong with moving quickly as long as you apply the brakes appropriately around the corners.

A quick post script: It should be noted that the peer review process is not a monolithic edifice of utter similarity across the board. Some journals (e.g., BMJ) have been practicing open peer review for quite some time now. And some new journals (e.g. PeerJ) are also pushing into new territory on this front.

Posted on

Good news x 3

Most days environmental news is bleak to say the least. Truthfully, much of what’s going on is bleak. Species are going extinct at record rates. Climate change seems to be accelerating. Environmental degradation is having real effects on real people.

But even though the bad news is usually what makes it onto the evening news, there are bits and pieces of good news as well. And those deserve to be highlighted. So, let’s take a look at three of those today.

—–

A clawed cave spider: I always get excited when I hear about new species discoveries. That’s partly because it reminds me that no matter how much we think that we’ve figured out, there are still zillions of cool things out there that we have no clue about. We just need to look – sometimes in difficult places. In this case, the cool new find is a new species of spider, Trogloraptor marchingtoni. And not just a new species, but seemingly an entirely new family. If a new species is a big deal, a new family is an even bigger deal. By way of analogy ostriches, pelicans, and hummingbirds are each in separate bird families. So you might say that this newly discovered spider is approximately as different from other groups of spiders as those three groups of birds are from each other.

Trogloraptor is about 4 cm in diameter and lives mainly in caves and some old growth forests. It has substantial claws on its legs, but it is not clear what they are used for. And, now that we know about this creature there are a ton of other new and interesting things to find out as well. What will those discoveries be? Only time, and more hard work, will tell.

An (un)extinct snail: The Mobile River Basin in the southeastern United States is home to an amazing diversity of freshwater mollusks. Or perhaps it should be said that it was home to an amazing diversity of freshwater mollusks. After years of human influences, several dozen species are now extinct. However, in a recent survey of the snail fauna of the Cahaba River, researchers found a small population of a snail that has been thought to be extinct for decades. The snails can be bred in captivity and the authors of the linked research article point out several locations that may be suitable for reintroductions.

Monarch butterflies finally find protection: I’ll probably devote an entire post to monarch butterflies in the near future because they are so amazing. Briefly, these insects migrate across a huge swath of North America to a few very small wintering areas in forest groves the mountains of Mexico. So, entire populations that cover large chunks of geography in the summer are dependent upon a the survival of a few hectares of trees. Because of this, they are highly susceptible to deforestation in that region. Illegal logging has been impinging on these winter redoubts for decades. Removal of trees, even trees not used by the butterflies for roosting, allows more rain below the canopy. Wet butterflies are highly susceptible to winter cold.

The whole situation has been extremely dire in recent years. But now comes news that cooperative work between government, NGOs, private individuals, and the people who live near to the butterflies’ overwintering groves has almost completely eliminated illegal logging. Residents are now replanting trees in the butterfly groves and are working on developing a more robust ecotourism-based economy.

—–

Yes, there are spots of good news out there as well. It pays to look for them because we need to take the time to highlight these events and accomplishments. They are due in large part to the dedication and efforts of researchers and, as exemplified in the case of the monarchs, to the people who are most likely to be affected by the negative consequences of doing nothing.