BSP pretends to be a proper scientific publisher, and not a predatory one. So, why sending an invitation to become a reviewer of some medicinal journal to a former scientist (see counter on my homepage) that dealt in phylogenetics and palaeobotany?
#FightTheFog (12) ancestors (3) animals (3) artwork (6) Austria (1) bad science (3) Beall's legacy (4) bias (2) branch support (3) Bundestagswahl (6) curiosities (1) data links (3) France (8) free science (3) funny things (3) Germany (6) in Deutsch (16) infographics (18) introduction (1) Ireland (1) Köppen-Geiger (3) Landtagswahlen (4) languages (4) lost science (2) not science (7) oddities (6) open access (1) open data (1) palaeontology (8) peer review (8) Philosophisches (2) phylo-networks (10) plants (10) politics (20) public interest (11) satire (8) science-related (13) Sweden (2) terminology (3) tips (14) USA (15) Wahl-O-Mat (3)
In 2007, a short but nice paper by Vidal-Russell & Nickrent provided a scenario for the unfolding of the Loranthaceae, a plant family of mostly epiphytic tree parasites. Recently, they teamed up with a Chinese group (Liu, Le et al. 2018) to provide a new, and totally unexpected hypothesis.
Elsevier's research data "not available/will be made available on request" – what will be your choice?
What do you do when authors claim something (showing nothing) that you know can't be true (because you showed otherwise)? Just request the data they used and re-analyse it to check. But this is not how it works. An example from Elsevier's Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution.
Far the most palaeophylogenetic studies rely exclusively on tree-inference as methodological framework. Thus, ignoring the fundamental properties over the underlying data: matrices that provide few tree-like signals. A recommendation what to show (and why).
In this week, we were showered in images of pure, mutual love between the presidents of France and the U.S.A. Some may find this odd, given the obvious differences between the two lovebirds. But it's completely natural.
Ups, he did it again! Just another Trumpel-Tweet going rogue. CNN asked the question and provide an answer, the Southern Poverty Law Center points to where he may have picked it up. I have some ideas, too.
In one of my last posts, I argued for looking out for ancestor-descendant relationships when putting up an evolutionary hypothesis based on fossil data. In this post, I will explore a bit the background of individual-based phylogenies and why we should keep in mind population processes, when analysing such data sets.