science publishing
sa smith | September 7, 2011I have to give a huge round of applause to PLoS, specifically, PLoS ONE, and their handling of the XMRV fiasco.
Some of you might remember, early 2010 PLoS published the very first 'Umm... XMRV isnt there...' paper, Failure to Detect the Novel Retrovirus XMRV in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
To a scientist, it was interesting, but not that big of a deal. People publish conflicting findings all the time. Eventually we get to the bottom of it. Whatever. Its annoying when you are in it, but its kinda funny to outside observing scientists.
The reaction from the initial studys principle…
awild | October 1, 2008This morning I had to deny a scientist permission to use my photos of her ants in a paper headed for PLoS Biology. I hate doing that. Especially when I took those photos in part to help her to promote her research.
The problem is that PLoS content is managed under a Creative Commons (=CC) licensing scheme. I don't do CC. Overall it's not a bad licensing scheme, but for one sticking point: CC allows users to re-distribute an image to external parties.
In an ideal world, non-profit users would faithfully tack on the CC license and the attribution to the photographer, as required by the…
grrlscientist | July 8, 2008tags: researchblogging.org, female scientists, science publishing, double-blind review, single-blind review, cultural observation, gender bias, sexism, feminism
A microbiologist at work.
Image: East Bay AWIS.
A few months ago, a controversy occurred in the blogosphere regarding whether scientific papers whose first author is female are discriminated against during the peer-review process, and the suggestion was to institute double-blind peer review as a way to mitigate this possibility. "Double-blinding" as this is sometimes referred to, is a process where a manuscript that has been…
grrlscientist | February 9, 2008tags: gender bias in science, female scientists, science publishing, sexism, feminism
I have been thinking about this problem of reviewer bias against female scientists and have a proposal: all scientists should either choose or be randomly assigned a gender-neutral first name, such as "Lee", "Alex", "Jordan", "Reese" or "Ali" or something like that, followed by the initials denoting the scientist's real first name, along with as many more initials as that person desires, and ending with the surname, spelled out. Thus, if a reviewer is subconsciously biased against his (or her) female…