One would expect, de-embargoing of the data dump goes automatically, when an article in Nature, flagship journal of Springer-NPG is published.
"Data availability: The data matrix for phylogenetic analyses is provided in Supplementary Data 1. Computed tomography data have been deposited in Dryad at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.5x69p8d2r."
Clicking the link 5 years later.
Rest in peace, deposited data. Interesting: 32 downloads. Has it been re-embargoed at some point?
Single-blind #PeerReview strikes again. Reviewer revealing himself to the coauthors of a paper 1 week after submission threatening to reject it, unless he becomes a coauthor.
Now they are negotiating a deal to avoid having to redo everything.
Wondering also, why a method-focussed paper (new approach) submitted to a journal dedicated to molecular #phylogeny is reviewed by somebody who knows the organism but has very little experience in (phylo)genetics
Have to love single blind.
#FightTheFog
So much for strict #OpenData policies. Paper published in 2021 in New Phytologist, data matrix: "... is accessible to readers in #Morphobank, project # 3917. We have enabled anonymous login."
https://www.morphobank.org/myprojects/3917/overview
Anonymous login works (first pic), "Project disc usage: 0 bytes". Which happens to be exactly the number of linked matrices under the project (2nd pic)
Deleted the data after review? Avoid anyone else can (mis)use it.
#paleobotany #phylogeny #FightTheFog #transparency in #science
For a change, a proper #milestone. 1000 reads on RG for the #Reticulate origin of modern plane trees (#Platanus, Platanaceae): A nuclear marker puzzle
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guido-Grimm/achievement/6929624c0df56f392494b91f
It's profoundly comforting to see that one's work is still raising interest after more than a decade, especially, something that at the time of publication was harshly attacked by "expert #reviewers" –anonymously of course (#FightTheFog). And ignored by the botanical High Priests beyond the Big Pond 😎😎😎
Pretty content with myself, today.
I used the one-way street called "single-blind peer review" in the wrong direction and reviewed the reviews in a (prob. pointless) letter to the editor.
You struggle hard to keep to the word-limit of the journal, just to get blamed for having a too short Materials and Results, "concealing" the many weaknesses of one's work. And nobody minds the 30p long Suppl. M&M and 113p long Suppl. R&D
Rigorous #PeerReview @ PLoS ONE: reject a paper because the editor cannot manage to get (any) reviews in time.
Related #FunFact: as long as reviews are quick, a paper's and the reviewer's reports quality doesn't matter so much. And not only in PLoS ONE.
Related 2017 post:
https://researchinpeace.blogspot.com/2017/09/one-date-that-is-missing-in-many.html
#OldPosts
#Peerreviewed: "We interpret this #paleoclimate as summer dry and winter wet—a climate analogous to modern day warm #Mediterranean climates in the Köppen‐
Geiger climate classification system" https://doi.org/10.1029/2024PA004874
That'd be Csa. Pic: fig. 4, modern analogs 🤨
Well, thanks to #ClimateChange, they all turn Csa eventually: #OldPosts
Wladimir Köppen – a climate-vegetation genius, and what this has to do with wine
https://researchinpeace.blogspot.com/2018/02/wladimir-koppen-climate-vegetation.html
#Science #Publishing #FunFact: The individual H-indices of the four senior authors are, according to their #GoogleScholar profiles, 58 and 56 for the museum curators, 153 for the "distinguished professor" and 146 for his spouse (many shared papers). La creme-de-creme of the FMNH/UF
https://scholar.google.de/citations?view_op=view_org&hl=de&org=5315230152465104173&before_author=-rG4__VUAQAJ&astart=0
Saves a lot of time not having even to read the papers of one's juniors and first-authors.
Time you can spend on fun things. Just look at their happy faces.
grimmiges
Maikel de Bakker