DOCSLIB.ORG

Rejection Rates and Impact Factors in Ecological Journals L.W

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rejection Rates and Impact Factors in Ecological Journals L.W The Open Ecology Journal, 2008, 1, 14-19 14 Open Access Bang for Your Buck: Rejection Rates and Impact Factors in Ecological Journals L.W. Aarssen1,*, T. Tregenza2, A.E. Budden3, C.J. Lortie4, J. Koricheva5 and R. Leimu6 1Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada; 2Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Tremough, Penryn, TR10 9EZ, UK; 3Department of Biology, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, Ontario, M6S 2E2, Canada; 4National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, 735 State Street, Suite 300. Santa Barbara, CA 93101; 5School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK; 6Department of Biology, University of Turku, FIN-20014, Finland Abstract: When choosing where to submit their research for publication, most ecologists are concerned with journal impact factor, but they are also concerned with the likelihood that their manuscripts will be accepted. Based on a survey of ecologists, we found different degrees of relative concern for these journal attributes depending on author experience and gender. However, the ability of authors to choose among journals based on these journal attributes is limited: while journal impact factors are published regularly, journal rejection rates are not. We obtained, by permission, rejection rate data for a sample of 60 ecology journals for the year 2004. As expected, journals with higher impact factors also have higher rejection rates, but the ratio of [rejection rate] / [impact factor] increases sharply with decreasing impact factor below 1.76. Journals with impact factors below this value therefore provide relatively low payback in terms of impact against cost as estimated by rejection rate. We discuss alternative possible interpretations of this relationship and alternative criteria that might affect an author’s decision about journal choice. Most importantly, our analysis indicates that the ability to make informed choices requires that journals publish their rejection rates annually. PREAMBLE With each iteration, the author selects a journal on the basis of several distinguishing traits including journal impact factor, How does an author decide where to submit a paper for likelihood of acceptance, and likelihood of rapid decision. The publication? This important decision is made routinely relative importance and scope of application of impact factors throughout the career of a typical researching and other publication related metrics is not without debate, i.e. scientist/academic. The choices made can profoundly how broadly they apply between researchers, fields, and affect the trajectory, rate of progress, and status of one’s journals, and how accurately they describe the relative success research career. Necessarily, the subject category of the of a journal or publication scientifically [1-4]. Nevertheless, in journals under consideration must be concordant with the our recent survey of ecologists, the majority of 1250 research topic of the paper. However after this, most respondents rated all three journal traits, including impact authors in the field of ecology at least, are usually still factor, as either ‘important’ or ‘very important’ (Table 1), presented with more than one choice of a topically suitable although less so with respect to likelihood of acceptance. Of subset of candidate journals. And, when the paper is course, from an author’s perspective, the ‘ideal’ journal would rejected (an experience that few if any manage to avoid have a high impact factor, a high likelihood of acceptance, and completely), the author is commonly inclined to iteratively provide a rapid decision. In this study, we test whether select alternative journals. journals with the first two desirable attributes exist. More Table 1. Percentages of Survey Responses (N=1250) in which Participants were Asked to Rate the Importance of Three Factors when Selecting a Journal for Submitting Manuscripts. [The Web-Based Survey was Designed by the National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) Ecobias Working Group (www.ecobias.org), and was Posted Online from May 4th, 2006 to November 4th, 2006] Factor Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important High journal impact factor 39.6 46.0 12.6 1.8 High likelihood of acceptance 11.2 44.3 36.7 7.8 High likelihood of rapid decision 25.2 47.0 22.5 5.3 specifically, we identify the realized phenotype, or set of traits, for the majority of ecological journals including number of *Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Biology, papers received or published, gender of authors, citation rates Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada; E-mail: over time, and total number of authors. We also integrate these [email protected] 1874-2130/08 2008 Bentham Open Journal Rejection Rates and Impact Factors The Open Ecology Journal, 2008, Volume 1 15 findings with the submission preferences expressed by The mean IF for responding journals (1.69) did not differ gender in the survey data and also provide a general metric significantly from that of non-responding journals (1.86) (t- of payback for cost (rejection) relative to gain (impact test; P=0.617). factor). The likelihood of rejection increases with increasing journal impact factor (Fig. 1, Pearson’s product moment ANALYSES AND RESULTS correlation: r = 0.741, P<0.001; partial correlation with num- The sample pool of ecological journals (107) was ber of papers published in 2004 held constant: r = 0.687, defined as the inclusive list of journals listed in the ‘Eco- P<0.001). This is not surprising, however the relationship is logy’ category by ISI Science (www.isiwebofknowledge. more accurately described as 'triangular' with a linear ‘lower- com). Rejection rates were assigned by contacting the bound' to the distribution (dashed line in Fig. 1). In other editors independently for all 107 journals. Editors were words, there is an absence of high impact factor journals with asked to provide the rejection rate for their journal for a low rejection rate (the bottom right corner), but there are 2004. The response rate was 56% (N=60 journals) (Table many journals with a low impact factor and relatively high 2). Impact factor was obtained from ISI Web of Science. rejection rates (top left corner of the graph). Table 2. The 60 Journals from the ‘Ecology’ Category List Provided by ISI Web of Science (http://www.isiwebofknowledge.com/) that Responded to Our Request for Rejection Rate Data American Naturalist Journal of Evolutionary Biology Animal Conservation J of Experimental Marine Biol and Ecol Annales Zoologici Fennici J of the NA Benthological Society Applied Vegetation Science Journal of soil water conservation Aquatic Microbital Ecology Journal of Vegetation Science Austral Ecology Journal of Wildlife Management Basic and Applied Ecology Landscape Ecology Behavioural Ecology Microbial Ecology Biotropica Natural Areas Journal Chemoecology New Zealand Journal of Ecology Conservation Biology Northeastern Naturalist Ecography Oikos Ecological Economics Oryx Ecological Engineering Proceedings of the Linnean Society of NSW Ecology Letters Paleobiology Ecological Research Pedobiologia Ecoscience Plant Ecology Ecosystems Polish Journal of Ecology Ecotoxicology Polar Biology Evolutionary Ecology Population Ecology Evolutionary Ecology Research Rangeland Journal Evolution Restoration Ecology Functional Ecology South African Journal of Wildlife Research Global Ecology and Biogeography Southeastern Naturalist Journal of Animal Ecology Southwestern Naturalist Journal of Applied Ecology Western North American Naturalist Journal of Arid Environments Wetlands Journal of Biogeography Wildlife Biology Journal of Chemical Ecology Wildlife Monographs Journal of Ecology Wildlife Society Bulletin 16 The Open Ecology Journal, 2008, Volume 1 Aarssen et al. 250 90 200 80 70 150 60 RR/IF 50 100 40 Rejection Rate 30 50 20 10 0 012345 0 Impact Factor 012345 Impact Factor Fig. (2). Relationship between journal impact factor and the ratio of rejection rate to impact factor. Solid line represents a significant Fig. (1). Scatterplot showing the relationship between journal inverse relationship and dashed line reflects the median ratio of 32.1. impact factor in 2004 and the percentage of papers rejected in 2004 for 60 journals listed in the ‘Ecology’ category by ISI Web the median value which suggests that there is little to of Science (http://www.isiwebofknowledge.com/). The relation- recommend these journals for an author that is deciding where ship is significantly positive (partial correlation with number of to submit. papers published in 2004 held constant: r = 0.687, P<0.001), but This trade-off between impact factor and the likelihood of note the generally triangular data distribution with a ‘lower- manuscript acceptance presents an interesting dilemma given boundedness' indicated by the dashed line through the origin. the results from our on-line survey indicating that most authors Authors wishing to be strategic in their publishing rank both of these journal traits as important or very important behaviour might selectively favour journals with a low in deciding where to submit. Moreover, the relative rejection rate to impact factor (RR/IF) ratio for submission importance placed on journal impact factor versus acceptance of their articles. In our dataset, the median RR/IF ratio was probability depends on whether an author had previously 32.1 (range 16.5 – 200.8). Therefore, journals
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alternative Stable States of Tidal Marsh Vegetation Patterns and Channel Complexity
    ECOHYDROLOGY Ecohydrol. (2016) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/eco.1755 Alternative stable states of tidal marsh vegetation patterns and channel complexity K. B. Moffett1* and S. M. Gorelick2 1 School of the Environment, Washington State University Vancouver, Vancouver, WA, USA 2 Department of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA ABSTRACT Intertidal marshes develop between uplands and mudflats, and develop vegetation zonation, via biogeomorphic feedbacks. Is the spatial configuration of vegetation and channels also biogeomorphically organized at the intermediate, marsh-scale? We used high-resolution aerial photographs and a decision-tree procedure to categorize marsh vegetation patterns and channel geometries for 113 tidal marshes in San Francisco Bay estuary and assessed these patterns’ relations to site characteristics. Interpretation was further informed by generalized linear mixed models using pattern-quantifying metrics from object-based image analysis to predict vegetation and channel pattern complexity. Vegetation pattern complexity was significantly related to marsh salinity but independent of marsh age and elevation. Channel complexity was significantly related to marsh age but independent of salinity and elevation. Vegetation pattern complexity and channel complexity were significantly related, forming two prevalent biogeomorphic states: complex versus simple vegetation-and-channel configurations. That this correspondence held across marsh ages (decades to millennia)
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple Stable States and Regime Shifts - Environmental Science - Oxford Bibliographies 3/30/18, 10:15 AM
    Multiple Stable States and Regime Shifts - Environmental Science - Oxford Bibliographies 3/30/18, 10:15 AM Multiple Stable States and Regime Shifts James Heffernan, Xiaoli Dong, Anna Braswell LAST MODIFIED: 28 MARCH 2018 DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199363445-0095 Introduction Why do ecological systems (populations, communities, and ecosystems) change suddenly in response to seemingly gradual environmental change, or fail to recover from large disturbances? Why do ecological systems in seemingly similar settings exhibit markedly different ecological structure and patterns of change over time? The theory of multiple stable states in ecological systems provides one potential explanation for such observations. In ecological systems with multiple stable states (or equilibria), two or more configurations of an ecosystem are self-maintaining under a given set of conditions because of feedbacks among biota or between biota and the physical and chemical environment. The resulting multiple different states may occur as different types or compositions of vegetation or animal communities; as different densities, biomass, and spatial arrangement; and as distinct abiotic environments created by the distinct ecological communities. Alternative states are maintained by the combined effects of positive (or amplifying) feedbacks and negative (or stabilizing feedbacks). While stabilizing feedbacks reinforce each state, positive feedbacks are what allow two or more states to be stable. Thresholds between states arise from the interaction of these positive and negative feedbacks, and define the basins of attraction of the alternative states. These feedbacks and thresholds may operate over whole ecosystems or give rise to self-organized spatial structure. The combined effect of these feedbacks is also what gives rise to ecological resilience, which is the capacity of ecological systems to absorb environmental perturbations while maintaining their basic structure and function.
    [Show full text]
  • Ectomycorrhizal Fungal Communities at Forest Edges 93, 244–255 IAN A
    Journal of Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Ecology 2005 Ectomycorrhizal fungal communities at forest edges 93, 244–255 IAN A. DICKIE and PETER B. REICH Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA Summary 1 Ectomycorrhizal fungi are spatially associated with established ectomycorrhizal vegetation, but the influence of distance from established vegetation on the presence, abundance, diversity and community composition of fungi is not well understood. 2 We examined mycorrhizal communities in two abandoned agricultural fields in Minnesota, USA, using Quercus macrocarpa seedlings as an in situ bioassay for ecto- mycorrhizal fungi from 0 to 20 m distance from the forest edge. 3 There were marked effects of distance on all aspects of fungal communities. The abundance of mycorrhiza was uniformly high near trees, declined rapidly around 15 m from the base of trees and was uniformly low at 20 m. All seedlings between 0 and 8 m distance from forest edges were ectomycorrhizal, but many seedlings at 16–20 m were uninfected in one of the two years of the study. Species richness of fungi also declined with distance from trees. 4 Different species of fungi were found at different distances from the edge. ‘Rare’ species (found only once or twice) dominated the community at 0 m, Russula spp. were dominants from 4 to 12 m, and Astraeus sp. and a Pezizalean fungus were abundant at 12 m to 20 m. Cenococcum geophilum, the most dominant species found, was abundant both near trees and distant from trees, with lowest relative abundance at intermediate distances. 5 Our data suggest that seedlings germinating at some distance from established ecto- mycorrhizal vegetation (15.5 m in the present study) have low levels of infection, at least in the first year of growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae Fulbright Postdoctoral Fellow Soil and Fungal
    1 LOUISE M. EGERTON-WARBURTON Curriculum Vitae Chicago Botanic Garden Phone: 847.835.6915 1000 Lake Cook Rd Fax: 847.835.5484 Glencoe IL 60022 [email protected] EDUCATION: Fulbright Postdoctoral Fellow University of California, 1994- Soil and fungal ecology Riverside 1997 Ph.D., Environmental Biology Curtin University of 1994 Dissertation: Soil-plant relationships of Eucalyptus species Technology, Australia in acidic coal mining soils. Adviser: Byron B. Lamont B.S., Biology (Highest Honors) Curtin University of 1989 Minor: Statistics Technology, Australia B.S., Nursing Western Australian School 1984 Clinical specialty: Operating Theater of Nursing APPOINTMENTS: Director and Coordinator, Research Experiences for Chicago Botanic Garden 2004- Undergraduates (REU) site in Plant Conservation and 2010 Biology Adjunct Professor of Biology Northwestern University 2003- present Conservation Scientist, Chicago Botanic Garden 2001- Soil and Microbial Ecology, and present Manager, Soil Sciences Program Assistant Researcher, University of California, 1999- Soil Microbial Ecology Riverside 2001 Post-doctoral Research Fellow, University of Melbourne, 1998- Cell & Molecular Biology, Nanotechnology Australia 1999 TEACHING APPOINTMENTS: Instructor, §Field and Lab Methods in Conservation Northwestern University 2009- Biology (PBC499) present Instructor, §Soils and Environment (PBC448), Northwestern University 2008- Fall quarter present Guest lecturer, Introductory Mycology University of Wisconsin, 2008 Winter quarter Madison 2 Guest lecturer,
    [Show full text]
  • Putting Constraints on the Role of Competition in Limiting Diversity In
    Curriculum Vitae - Bryan Latimer Foster Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology / Kansas Biological Survey University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045 785-864-3346, [email protected] EEB Faculty page: http://www2.ku.edu/~eeb/faculty/foster.shtml Lab Website: http://kbs.ku.edu/people/staff_www/foster/index.htm EDUCATION 1996 Ph.D. Botany and Plant Pathology, Michigan State University. Advisor: Katherine Gross 1992 M.S. Zoology, Michigan State University. Advisor: Katherine Gross 1989 B.S. Range Science, Texas A&M University. Advisor: Fred Smeins PROFFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS 2012-present Professor, Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas 2012-present Senior Scientist, Kansas Biological Survey 2005-2011 Associate Professor, Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas 1999-2005 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas 1997-1999 Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota. Advisor: David Tilman 1996-1997 Postdoctoral Researcher, Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University. Advisor: Katherine Gross, Mike Klug RESEARCH EXPERTISE Community Ecology, Restoration Ecology COURSES TAUGHT Principles of Ecology (BIOL 414) Community and Ecosystems Ecology (BIOL 714) Field and Laboratory Methods in Ecology (BIOL 415) Plant Ecology (BIOL 602) Field and Laboratory Exercises in Plant Ecology (BIOL 607) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function (BIOL 701 graduate seminar) Species Coexistence and Community Organization (BIOL 701 graduate seminar) Ecological Applications (BIOL 701 graduate seminar) Community Ecology (BIOL 701 graduate seminar) Restoration Ecology (BIOL 701 graduate seminar) EXTERNAL FUNDING 2010-2015. NSF-Population and Community Ecology ($580,362). Plant recruitment, coexistence and community assembly in developing prairie restorations. PI: B.
    [Show full text]
  • Disturbance Ecology and Forest Management: a Review of the Literature
    United States Department of Agriculture Disturbance Ecology and Forest Service Intermountain Forest Management: a Research Station General Technical Review of the Literature Report INT-GTR-336 May 1996 Paul Rogers The Author Forest Service has adopted a policy of ecosystem management that emphasizes maintaining the values of sustainability, biodiver- Paul Rogers is an ecologist in the Interior West Resource Inven- sity, productivity, and forest health rather than focusing on particu- tory, Monitoring, and Evaluation Program at the Intermountain lar deliverable products. Research Station. His primary responsibility is to conduct field work In the attempt to implement ecosystem management, land and report on Forest Health Monitoring efforts in the Interior West. managers are asking basic scientific questions that go far beyond He holds a B.S. degree in geography from Utah State University the scope of historical Forest Service research. Concurrent with and an M.S. degree in geography from the University of Wisconsin- this demand are budgets being slashed and research positions Madison. Since beginning his career with the Forest Service in being eliminated. Land managers are being asked to implement 1987, Rogers has specialized in conducting large-scale field and new knowledge-intensive programs at a time when resources are remote vegetative surveys. being dramatically reduced. To address this significant dilemma, we need to re-evaluate how research is conducted within the Forest Service and how more effectively to involve partners from Research Summary the research community. Land managers are incorporating ecosystem perspectives into As a part of this effort, we have established an Intermountain their local and regional management decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Invasive Species Research Use More Militaristic Language Than Other Ecology and Conservation Biology Literature?
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal NeoBiota 44:Does 27–38 invasive (2019) species research use more militaristic language than other ecology and... 27 doi: 10.3897/neobiota.44.32925 RESEARCH ARTICLE NeoBiota http://neobiota.pensoft.net Advancing research on alien species and biological invasions Does invasive species research use more militaristic language than other ecology and conservation biology literature? Rachel M. Janovsky1, Eric R. Larson1 1 Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, 61801, USA Corresponding author: Eric R. Larson ([email protected]) Academic editor: I. Kowarik | Received 7 January 2019 | Accepted 18 March 2019 | Published 4 April 2019 Citation: Janovsky RM, Larson ER (2019) Does invasive species research use more militaristic language than other ecology and conservation biology literature? NeoBiota 44: 27–38. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.44.32925 Abstract Invasive species research has been criticised for a reliance on hyperbolic or sensationalistic language, in- cluding the use of militaristic language that dates to the popularisation of this concept. We sought to evaluate whether the invasive species literature used more militaristic language than other literature across the fields of ecology and conservation biology, given that many research areas in these fields (e.g. competi- tion) may routinely use militaristic language. We compared militaristic language use in journal articles on invasive species or other topics across both applied and basic science journals in the fields of ecology and conservation biology. We further restricted our study to papers where lead-authors were located at institutions in the United States, to evaluate whether militaristic language use varied over peace time and conflict periods for this country.
    [Show full text]
  • Associate Professor Ecology and Evolution Biology Yale University
    A. CARLA STAVER Associate Professor Ecology and Evolution Biology Yale University PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS 2019- Associate Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University 2014-2019 Assistant Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University 2015-pres Secondary Appointment, Forestry & Environmental Studies, Yale University 2012-2014 Prize Postdoctoral Fellow, E3B, Columbia University 2012 Postdoctoral Researcher, EEB, Princeton University EDUCATION AND TRAINING 2008-2012 Ph.D. in Ecology and Environmental Biology, Princeton University 2006-2008 M.Sc. in Botany, University of Cape Town (Distinction) 2001-2005 B.A. in Ecology, Evolution, & Environmental Biology, Columbia University NOTABLE HONORS AND AWARDS 2017 Tansley Medal shortlist from the New Phytologist Trust 2015-2020 Early Career Fellow, Ecological Society of America 2015 Runner-up for Harper Prize, British Ecological Society 2013 Jasper Loftus-Hills Young Investigator Award, American Society of Naturalists 2012 George Mercer Award, Ecological Society of America 2005-2006 Fulbright US Student Fellowship GRANTS AND FUNDING 2018-2023 Scaling Fire Size from Local Process to Continental Pattern (PI) $1,035,000 NSF Macrosystems Biology (Total: $1,035,000) 2016-2019 Spatial Dynamics of Savanna-Forest Boundaries (PI) $250,000 NSF Mathematical Biology (Total: $400,000) 2016-2019 NSF Graduate Research Fellowship to Madelon Case $132,000 2015 Reading the Historical Record of the Mara Using Sediment Cores from the Mara Wetland (Co-PI; PI David Post, Yale) $65,641 World Wildlife Fund for Nature 2012-2015 Fire, land use, and the savannization of seasonally dry Amazon forests (Co-PI) Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation $112,838 Sub-award from Woods Hole Research Center (PI: M. Coe, Total $1,344,453) 1 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Recruitment of Reviewers Is Becoming Harder at Some Journals: a Test of the Influence of Reviewer Fatigue at Six Journals in Ecology and Evolution Charles W
    Fox et al. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2017) 2:3 Research Integrity and DOI 10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x Peer Review COMMENTARY Open Access Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution Charles W. Fox1*, Arianne Y. K. Albert2 and Timothy H. Vines3 Abstract Background: It is commonly reported by editors that it has become harder to recruit reviewers for peer review and that this is because individuals are being asked to review too often and are experiencing reviewer fatigue. However, evidence supporting these arguments is largely anecdotal. Main body: We examine responses of individuals to review invitations for six journals in ecology and evolution. The proportion of invitations that lead to a submitted review has been decreasing steadily over 13 years (2003–2015) for four of the six journals examined, with a cumulative effect that has been quite substantial (average decline from 56% of review invitations generating a review in 2003 to just 37% in 2015). The likelihood that an invitee agrees to review declines significantly with the number of invitations they receive in a year. However, the average number of invitations being sent to prospective reviewers and the proportion of individuals being invited more than once per year has not changed much over these 13 years, despite substantial increases in the total number of review invitations being sent by these journals—the reviewer base has expanded concomitant with this growth in review requests. Conclusions: The proportion of review invitations that lead to a review being submitted has been declining steadily for four of the six journals examined here, but reviewer fatigue is not likely the primary explanation for this decline.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Constraints Highlight Complex Microbial Interactions During Lake Biofilm Development
    Received: 30 October 2018 | Accepted: 3 June 2019 DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.13223 RESEARCH ARTICLE Resource constraints highlight complex microbial interactions during lake biofilm development Kevin H. Wyatt1 | Rody C. Seballos1 | Maria N. Shoemaker1 | Shawn P. Brown2 | Sudeep Chandra3 | Kevin A. Kuehn4 | Allison R. Rober1 | Steven Sadro5 1Department of Biology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana Abstract 2Department of Biological Sciences, The 1. This study evaluated how the availability of nutrients and organic carbon interact University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee to influence the associations between autotrophic and heterotrophic micro‐or- 3Global Water Center, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada ganisms during lake biofilm development. Considering that decomposers are often 4Department of Biological Sciences, The better competitors for nutrients than producers in aquatic environments, we hy- University of Southern Mississippi, pothesized that heterotrophs would outcompete autotrophs for available nutri- Hattiesburg, Mississippi ents unless heterotrophs were limited by organic carbon provided by autotrophs. 5Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, 2. To test our hypothesis, we evaluated autotrophic (algae) and heterotrophic (fungi, California bacteria) biomass in response to a factorial enrichment of nutrients (nitrogen and Correspondence phosphorus in combination) and glucose using nutrient‐diffusing substrates with Kevin H. Wyatt either inorganic or organic discs in a subalpine lake. In
    [Show full text]
  • Macroecology in the Age of Big Data – Where to Go from Here?
    Macroecology in the age of Big Data – Where to go from here? Rafael Wüest, Niklaus Zimmermann, Damaris Zurell, Jake Alexander, Susanne Fritz, Christian Hof, Holger Kreft, Signe Normand, Juliano Sarmento Cabral, Enikö Székely, et al. To cite this version: Rafael Wüest, Niklaus Zimmermann, Damaris Zurell, Jake Alexander, Susanne Fritz, et al.. Macroe- cology in the age of Big Data – Where to go from here?. Journal of Biogeography, Wiley, 2020, 47 (1), pp.1-12. 10.1111/jbi.13633. hal-02462209 HAL Id: hal-02462209 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02462209 Submitted on 12 Nov 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Received: 7 February 2019 | Revised: 8 May 2019 | Accepted: 9 May 2019 DOI: 10.1111/jbi.13633 PERSPECTIVE Macroecology in the age of Big Data – Where to go from here? Rafael O. Wüest1 | Niklaus E. Zimmermann1 | Damaris Zurell2 | Jake M. Alexander3 | Susanne A. Fritz4,5 | Christian Hof6 | Holger Kreft7 | Signe Normand8 | Juliano Sarmento Cabral9 | Eniko Szekely10 | Wilfried Thuiller11 | Martin Wikelski12,13 | Dirk Nikolaus Karger1
    [Show full text]
  • Will Technology Trample Peer Review in Ecology? Ongoing Issues and Potential Solutions
    Oikos 000: 001–007, 2015 doi: 10.1111/oik.02956 © 2015 Th e Author. Oikos © 2015 Nordic Society Oikos Subject Editor: Dries Bonte. Editor-in-Chief: Dustin Marshall. Accepted 16 August 2015 Will technology trample peer review in ecology? Ongoing issues and potential solutions Pedro R. Peres-Neto P. R. Peres-Neto ([email protected]), Canada Research Chair in Spatial Modelling and Biodiversity, D é pt des Sciences Biologiques, Univ. du Qu é bec à Montr é al, CP 8888, Succ. Centre Ville, Montreal, QC, H3C 3P8, Canada. Th e classical view of peer review is that it is our primary process for assessing and judging whether research results should be published in a scholarly journal. However, the increased pressure to publish and technological developments are transform- ing peer review such that it is becoming a system that judges where work is published rather than whether the research is publishable (a ‘ where rather than if ’ process). Ecology is a fi eld in which publication numbers puts a particular pressure on the review system. In this forum piece, I summarize the issues with the current publication system and discuss how tech- nology is changing it, while suggesting solutions for important prior and ongoing issues with the peer review system. Th e view explored here is that technological developments (e.g. ease of creating journals, internet sites, storage, data generation, sharing of data and analytical code) will not eliminate peer review per se but will allow for a new set of parameters in which ethics and the optimal use of public funding will play a vital role in the evolution of the review process.
    [Show full text]