Pedro Peres-Neto

📜Forum: A trait-based framework for adaptive phenotypic plasticity under global change

vist.ly/48kss

#BehavioralPlasticity #ClimateChange #ExtremeEvents #GeneByEnvironmentInteractions #IntraspecificVariation #MorphologicalPlasticity #PhysiologicalPlasticity #Stochasticity #Variability

Excited for our 1st Canadian Conference on Open Science and Open Scholarship tomorrow at @concordia.ca 🇨🇦

oscanada.github.io/en/

Without forward-looking models, biodiversity policy risks missing the road to recovery.
Our new PNAS article calls for predictive tools and a World Biodiversity Research Programme to guide global action.

👉 doi.org/10.1073/pnas...
#Biodiversity #Conservation #PredictiveModels #PNAS

Wow!

An incredible resource:

Great to hear from you as well Blas! Thanks for clarifying!

Blas, this looks interesting; what did you mean by random in max correlation?

YouTube video by Julien Cohen The most INSANE Bohemian Rhapsody Flashmob you will ever see!!

"It is said that Freddie (Mercury) once said "do what you want with my music, just don't make it boring".

👇

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfUE...

@dmennill.bsky.social

I often realize that my quantitative work is supported by analytics from very diverse fields. The paper below about political advertisement helped some of the analytics of onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...

Read broadly has been important to me and I highly recommend it.

Yes, 'senior' colleagues should help their less 'senior' colleagues to go by the motto 'Say no, more'....which is, in my mind, more to the point than 'Say yes, less' (teasing here one of my dear colleagues in my department).

Totally! But academic cultures differ in how they see editorial work as “volunteer.” In Canada, service usually makes up ~20% of a faculty appointment, and editorial work counts. Funding bodies like NSERC-DG also treat it as a meaningful contribution.

I collect them 😀!

Though the lack of feedback may reflect the fact that many authors see journals less as "homes" for their papers and more as stepping-stones in a publishing strategy. I like to think that Oikos curates & nurtures research communities, rather than simply collect papers.

From the editor's desk:

"The manuscript has improved substantially during its review at Oikos, and I am glad we chose to submit this work here."

@oikosjournal.bsky.social

So true! But there’s more to it - 1) Most manuscript systems don’t notify editors when emails bounce (e.g., wrong address) or when a reviewer sets an away message; and 2) Some servers still send reviewer invitations straight to junk mail.

There’s a lot of room for improvement on that front;

I always liked him! Farewell Graham Green!

And another quality is that 'we' are quirky too...since 1949!!

From the editor's desk:

"We identified Oikos as the most meaningful venue for this work, not only due to its central role in the field of ecology and its high scientific standards, but also because of its long-standing tradition of editorial integrity and its commitment to equity in science"

YouTube video by NASA's Ames Research Center New Supercomputer Simulation Sheds Light on Moon’s Origin

An impressive simulation illustrating a leading hypothesis on how our moon was formed.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRlh...

Agreed! If it's not desk rejected, we need to work with authors to understand the delays and that they provide extended lists. Not all editors are immediate experts in some areas as much as we tend to match expertise.

Very weird indeed!

I agree! And think journals shouldn't adopt this policy; but they are going in that direction. Authors do need to assist more in providing large lists of potential reviewers as well.

I agree that is not fair. But high impact journals seem to be going in this direction. So, it's up to the community to express their concerns to these journals.

That the paper won’t draw much interest from the "community". One of my favourite papers I edited was for MEE and took me nearly 30 reviewers! But the authors were very very understanding when I communicated the issue.

I agree that is potentially flawed! And desk rejection is not always best for many papers. That said, it seems that authors engage more in providing good potential reviewers when this policy is in place.

From the editorial desk:

Assistant Professor, Freshwater Ecologist, Faculty of Science, University of Calgary in Calgary, ... Assistant Professor, Freshwater Ecologist, Faculty of Science, University of Calgary in Calgary, ...

Assistant Professor, Freshwater Ecologist, Faculty of Science, University of Calgary in Canada #academicjob careers.ucalgary.ca/jobs/1652277...

Absolutely!!!

From the Editor’s Desk:

When submitting your manuscript, please remember to include 6–10 potential reviewers. Suggesting a list of experts helps ensure a faster and more efficient review process. Thank you authors.

Back to the desk!

One point to consider is the scale of differences. In a linear scale the difference between 0.045-0.055 is smaller in surprise (0.28 bits) than between 0.20-0.21 (0.07 bits). So, in ‘surprise’ scale, small p-values lie on the steep part of the curve leading to large relative changes in "evidence".