Ideas in Ecology and Evolution最新文献

英文中文

Defining clonality and individuals in plant evolution 定义植物进化中的克隆和个体

IF 0.2

Ideas in Ecology and Evolution

Pub Date : 2014-11-08 DOI: 10.4033/IEE.2014.17.C

Root Gorelick

Aarssen (2014) proposes estimating fitness in clonal and aclonal seed plants by defining an individual as a rooted-unit, which he defines by the root-to-shoot transition in anatomy of the stele. This approach may be helpful for some seed plant taxa, maybe even most seed plants, because of being much more readily operational than most other definitions of individuals. However, the rooted-unit approach seems to falter for many weird plants, such as those with anomalous root and shoot anatomy and plants that can reproduce clonally from leaves or apomictic seeds. Another problem with using rooted-units to circumscribe individuals is the implicit assumption that mitosis constrains genetic variance and meiosis increases genetic variance, when the exact opposite may be true. Although definitions of individuals are arbitrary, there may soon be sufficient data to ascertain which definitions are most useful, i.e. which definitions of individuals help unify evolutionary theory.

Aarssen(2014)提出通过将个体定义为一个有根的单位来估计无性系和无性系种子植物的适应度，他将其定义为柱状结构中根到茎的转变。这种方法可能对某些种子植物类群，甚至可能对大多数种子植物有帮助，因为它比其他大多数个体定义更容易操作。然而，对于许多奇怪的植物，如那些具有异常根和茎解剖结构的植物，以及可以从叶子或无融合种子无性繁殖的植物，根单位方法似乎不太适用。使用根单位来限制个体的另一个问题是隐含的假设，即有丝分裂限制遗传变异，减数分裂增加遗传变异，而事实可能恰恰相反。尽管个体的定义是任意的，但可能很快就会有足够的数据来确定哪些定义是最有用的，也就是说，哪些个体定义有助于统一进化论。

引用次数: 3

Practical guidance for early career researchers dealing with tardy or unresponsive co-authors 早期职业研究人员处理迟缓或反应迟钝的共同作者的实用指导

IF 0.2

Ideas in Ecology and Evolution

Pub Date : 2014-11-08 DOI: 10.4033/IEE.2014.7.15.E

S. Cooke

Everyone that has experience in academic publishing is all too familiar with the "tardy co-author"—or worse— one that is completely unresponsive.

每个有学术出版经验的人都非常熟悉“拖沓的合著者”——或者更糟——完全没有反应的人。

引用次数: 0

On whimsy, jokes, and beauty: can scientific writing be enjoyed? 论奇思妙想、笑话和美:科学写作能让人享受吗?

IF 0.2

Ideas in Ecology and Evolution

Pub Date : 2014-09-05 DOI: 10.4033/IEE.2014.7.14.F

S. Heard

While scientists are often exhorted to write better, it isn’t entirely obvious what “better” means. It’s uncontroversial that good scientific writing is clear, with the reader’s understanding as effortless as possible. Unsettled, and largely undiscussed, is the question of whether our goal of clarity precludes us from making our writing enjoyable by incorporating touches of whimsy, humanity, humour, and beauty. I offer examples of scientific writing that offers pleasure, drawing from ecology and evolution and from other natural sciences, and I argue that enjoyable writing can help recruit readers to a paper and retain them as they read. I document resistance to this idea in the scientific community, and consider the objections (well grounded and not) that may lie behind this resistance. I close by recommending that we include touches of whimsy and beauty in our own writing, and also that we work to encourage such touches in the writing of others.

虽然科学家经常被告诫要写得更好，但“更好”的含义并不完全清楚。毫无争议的是，好的科学写作是清晰的，读者可以毫不费力地理解。未解决的，基本上没有讨论的问题是，我们追求清晰的目标是否妨碍了我们通过融合奇思妙想、人性、幽默和美感，使我们的写作变得有趣。我列举了一些令人愉悦的科学写作的例子，从生态学、进化论和其他自然科学中汲取灵感。我认为，令人愉悦的写作有助于吸引读者阅读一篇论文，并在阅读过程中留住他们。我记录了科学界对这一观点的抵制，并考虑了这种抵制背后可能存在的反对意见(有根据的也有不充分的)。最后，我建议我们在自己的写作中加入奇思妙想和美丽的元素，同时我们也鼓励别人在写作中加入这种元素。

引用次数: 15

Reject, Revise, and Resubmit — Please… 拒绝、修改和重新提交-请…

IF 0.2

Ideas in Ecology and Evolution

Pub Date : 2014-07-22 DOI: 10.4033/IEE.2014.7.13.E

S. Cooke

Seriously—PLEASE! Journals want us to revise and resubmit papers that are rejected because it benefits them in two specific ways. First, it gives the illusion that the journals are highly selective by rejecting material and then accepting it later as a new submission. The rejection rate increases which increases prestige in some twisted way which also seems to attract papers in greater numbers. Indeed, Wardle (2012) notes that journal acceptance rates in ecology and evolution are “plummeting”. Could that be an artefact of excessive use of “reject, revise and resubmit”? Second, it skews the statistics for time between submission and both first and final editorial decision. Again, this information is shared with potential authors, often via journal advertising material, thus attracting authors given the apparent rapidity in which one can expect their paper to be handled. I submit that the often used editorial decision to “revise and resubmit” does nothing but feed an already broken system (McCook 2006, Lortie 2013). It is my assertion that in most cases “revise and resubmit” is simply a dramatic version of “major revisions.” “Major revisions” does not imply that a paper will eventually be accepted. As an author, I do not treat a paper that has been given the moniker of “revise and resubmit” any differently than one needing “major revisions.” One issue with “revise and resubmit” is that there is often no specific space or mechanism by which to upload and share the list of revisions with potential referees. That is, because it is treated as a new submission, the referees may not have access to the article history, meaning that the efforts taken by authors to document changes are somewhat moot, and time of both authors and referees can be wasted (if, for example, an author rebuts a criticism but the paper is again criticized by the same or a new referee for the same issue). This of course assumes that a paper that is revised and resubmitted actually goes to peer review. As a co-author, I recently had a paper “rejected with invitation to resubmit” with it being explicitly noted by the editor that it was a “rapid publication journal.” What does that mean? Well, in our case, it meant that the revised (new) manuscript was not sent for peer review and was simply accepted 4 days later. On the paper, it clearly shows that the paper was received on December 13 th and accepted on December 17 th . We never received any reviews, nor were required to respond to any science-based editorial queries (we did have to change a figure because photo quality was insufficient). So—I would argue that another statistic that should be tracked is the number of submissions that are accepted without being sent for external peer review. Using the same hokey accounting system of the journal to rack up extra rejections, I would knock them down for papers accepted without peer review. Isn’t real peer review by external experts the foundation for our modern peer review system (Rowlan

Seriously-PLEASE !期刊希望我们修改和重新提交被拒绝的论文，因为这在两个方面对他们有利。首先，它给人一种错觉，认为这些期刊是有高度选择性的，先是拒绝了文章，然后又作为新投稿接受了它。拒稿率的增加以某种扭曲的方式增加了声望，似乎也吸引了更多的论文。事实上，Wardle(2012)指出，生态学和进化领域的期刊接受率正在“直线下降”。这可能是过度使用“拒绝、修改和重新提交”的产物吗?其次，它扭曲了从提交到第一次和最终编辑决定之间的时间统计。同样，这些信息通常通过期刊广告材料与潜在的作者共享，从而吸引了作者，因为人们可以期待他们的论文被处理得很快。我认为，经常使用的“修改和重新提交”的编辑决定只会让一个已经破碎的系统更加脆弱(McCook 2006, Lortie 2013)。我断言，在大多数情况下，“修改并重新提交”只是“主要修改”的戏剧性版本。“重大修改”并不意味着论文最终会被接受。作为一名作者，我不会把一篇被冠以“修改再提交”的论文与一篇需要“大修”的论文区别对待。“修改并重新提交”的一个问题是，通常没有特定的空间或机制来上传并与潜在的审稿人分享修改列表。也就是说，由于它被视为新提交，审稿人可能无法访问文章的历史记录，这意味着作者为记录更改所做的努力在某种程度上是没有意义的，并且作者和审稿人的时间都可能被浪费(例如，如果作者反驳了批评，但论文再次被同一或同一问题的新审稿人批评)。当然，这是假设一篇经过修改和重新提交的论文实际上是经过同行评审的。作为一名合著者，我最近有一篇论文“被拒绝重新提交”，编辑明确指出这是一篇“快速出版期刊”。这是什么意思?嗯，在我们的例子中，这意味着修改后的(新)手稿没有发送给同行评审，而是在4天后被接受。在论文上，清楚地显示论文于12月13日收到，12月17日接受。我们从未收到任何评论，也没有被要求回应任何基于科学的编辑询问(由于照片质量不足，我们不得不更改一个数字)。因此，我认为应该跟踪的另一个统计数据是未发送给外部同行评审的被接受的提交数量。我会用杂志同样虚伪的会计系统来收集额外的拒绝，因为没有经过同行评议就被接受了。外部专家的同行评议不是现代同行评议体系的基础吗(Rowland 2002)?作为一名编辑，我很少使用“修改和重新提交”的决定，因为我不想玩游戏，尤其是因为我想把所有关于给定提交的日志通信保存在一个单一的、易于访问和交叉引用的数字文件中。有趣的是，“修改并重新提交”是推荐人的常见选择，也许是因为他们已经习惯了收到相同的决定。我还认为，“修改并重新提交”的决定对早期职业研究人员来说非常令人困惑(Schäfer et al. 2011)。当我们试着欢迎他们进入一个基于批判性分析的社区，旨在提高科学研究和产出时，为什么要让他们感到困惑，让他们参与荒谬的游戏?作为一个

{"title":"Reject, Revise, and Resubmit — Please…","authors":"S. Cooke","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2014.7.13.E","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.13.E","url":null,"abstract":"Seriously—PLEASE! Journals want us to revise and resubmit papers that are rejected because it benefits them in two specific ways. First, it gives the illusion that the journals are highly selective by rejecting material and then accepting it later as a new submission. The rejection rate increases which increases prestige in some twisted way which also seems to attract papers in greater numbers. Indeed, Wardle (2012) notes that journal acceptance rates in ecology and evolution are “plummeting”. Could that be an artefact of excessive use of “reject, revise and resubmit”? Second, it skews the statistics for time between submission and both first and final editorial decision. Again, this information is shared with potential authors, often via journal advertising material, thus attracting authors given the apparent rapidity in which one can expect their paper to be handled. I submit that the often used editorial decision to “revise and resubmit” does nothing but feed an already broken system (McCook 2006, Lortie 2013). It is my assertion that in most cases “revise and resubmit” is simply a dramatic version of “major revisions.” “Major revisions” does not imply that a paper will eventually be accepted. As an author, I do not treat a paper that has been given the moniker of “revise and resubmit” any differently than one needing “major revisions.” One issue with “revise and resubmit” is that there is often no specific space or mechanism by which to upload and share the list of revisions with potential referees. That is, because it is treated as a new submission, the referees may not have access to the article history, meaning that the efforts taken by authors to document changes are somewhat moot, and time of both authors and referees can be wasted (if, for example, an author rebuts a criticism but the paper is again criticized by the same or a new referee for the same issue). This of course assumes that a paper that is revised and resubmitted actually goes to peer review. As a co-author, I recently had a paper “rejected with invitation to resubmit” with it being explicitly noted by the editor that it was a “rapid publication journal.” What does that mean? Well, in our case, it meant that the revised (new) manuscript was not sent for peer review and was simply accepted 4 days later. On the paper, it clearly shows that the paper was received on December 13 th and accepted on December 17 th . We never received any reviews, nor were required to respond to any science-based editorial queries (we did have to change a figure because photo quality was insufficient). So—I would argue that another statistic that should be tracked is the number of submissions that are accepted without being sent for external peer review. Using the same hokey accounting system of the journal to rack up extra rejections, I would knock them down for papers accepted without peer review. Isn’t real peer review by external experts the foundation for our modern peer review system (Rowlan","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.13.E","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70234876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Zero tolerance to plagiarism will kill inspiration: a critique for academic meritocracy 对剽窃的零容忍将扼杀灵感:对学术精英的批判

IF 0.2

Ideas in Ecology and Evolution

Pub Date : 2014-05-25 DOI: 10.4033/IEE.2014.7.8.C

H. H. Bruun

Meritocratic justice is important, but not everything that matters. The long-term advancement of science depends heavily on scientists’ willingness to generously share their ideas. Only ideas with little meaning to others are truly private.

任人唯贤的公正固然重要，但并不是最重要的。科学的长期发展在很大程度上取决于科学家是否愿意慷慨地分享他们的想法。只有对别人没有什么意义的想法才是真正的隐私。

引用次数: 3

Citation, credit, and the ambiguous nature of creative science—a wider perspective for Bruun's views 引用、信用和创造性科学的模糊性——这是布鲁恩观点的一个更广阔的视角

IF 0.2

Ideas in Ecology and Evolution

Pub Date : 2014-05-25 DOI: 10.4033/IEE.V7I1.5267

D. Wilkinson

Hans Henrik Bruun (2014) argues that, although assigning credit to past work is important, it is not something that can easily be set about with formal rules—leading to charges of plagiarism if the rules are not followed to the letter. He goes further to suggest that such strict rules may actually stifle creative science and that, in this context, a much greater problem may be the large number of so-called ‘original’ research papers that do no more than reproduce previous findings in new settings (I have much sympathy with this last point, while noting that such studies are also crucial to the meta analysis approach to ecological questions!). Bruun (2014) develops his ideas in the context of ecological examples—here I try to provide a brief, wider context for the discussion drawing on several different areas of science from astronomy to molecular biology. A scientist’s reputation stands or falls on conceiving new ideas or collecting original data. Although there may be a considerable satisfaction in just working in an area of personal fascination irrespective of any credit (this is certainly true of many ecologists with a natural history background), credit does matter. One of the more interesting discussions of this is actually fictional—the novel The Bourbaki gambit by chemist turned novelist and playwright Carl Djerassi (1994). In the novel, a group of late career and somewhat marginalised scientists group together to have fun publishing under a single pseudonym. This scheme falls apart when they discover something truly important (in this alternative history novel, they invent PCR) and suddenly personal priority really matters! If reputation matters so much then surely a rigorous approach to citation matters too (indeed I believe it does but, as with Bruun, I don’t see it as the most important thing in the long term). There is a very practical problem with an insistence on citing the first original source—it’s often completely ambiguous what you should be citing! Most ideas in science emerge over time and don’t suddenly appear in the literature in their final form. The obvious example for the readership of an ecology and evolution journal being the very similar evolutionary ideas of Darwin and Wallace—which do you cite? In fact, it’s more complex than that, as a trawl through the pre-1858 literature can produce many brief discussions that seem to have at least part of the idea of natural selection, and there is a huge pre-Darwinian literature on the general idea of evolution. Should you cite them all? However, Darwin’s (1859) book not only introduced a range of novel theories but made them prominent. Indeed, in an interesting recent counterfactual history, Bowler (2013) suggests that without this book (i.e., if Darwin had drowned at sea in 1832), even allowing for Wallace’s work, modern evolutionary ideas would have emerged much more slowly than was the case in the real 19 th

Hans Henrik Bruun(2014)认为，虽然给过去的工作分配荣誉很重要，但这不是一件容易用正式规则设定的事情——如果不严格遵守规则，就会被指控抄袭。他进一步指出，这种严格的规定实际上可能会扼杀创造性的科学，在这种情况下，更大的问题可能是大量所谓的“原创”研究论文，这些论文只不过是在新的环境中复制了以前的发现(我非常赞同最后一点，同时注意到这些研究对生态问题的元分析方法也至关重要!)。Bruun(2014)在生态例子的背景下发展了他的观点——在这里，我试图为讨论提供一个简短的，更广泛的背景，从天文学到分子生物学的几个不同的科学领域。科学家的声誉是建立在构思新想法或收集原始数据上的。尽管在一个个人感兴趣的领域工作可能会有相当大的满足感，而不考虑任何荣誉(这当然是许多具有自然历史背景的生态学家的真实情况)，但荣誉确实很重要。关于这一点的一个更有趣的讨论实际上是虚构的——化学家出身的小说家和剧作家卡尔·杰拉西的小说《布尔巴基开局》(1994)。在这部小说中，一群职业生涯晚期和有些边缘化的科学家聚在一起，用一个笔名发表文章。当他们发现一些真正重要的事情时(在这部另类历史小说中，他们发明了PCR)，这个计划崩溃了，突然个人优先权真的很重要!如果声誉如此重要，那么严格的引用方法当然也很重要(我确实相信这一点，但就像布鲁恩一样，我不认为这是长期最重要的事情)。坚持引用第一个原始资料有一个非常实际的问题——你应该引用什么常常是完全模糊的!大多数科学思想都是随着时间的推移而形成的，而不是突然以最终形式出现在文献中。对于生态学和进化杂志的读者来说，最明显的例子是达尔文和华莱士非常相似的进化思想——你引用哪一个?事实上，事情要比这复杂得多，翻阅1858年以前的文献，你会发现很多简短的讨论，似乎至少有一部分是自然选择的观点，而且在达尔文之前，有大量关于进化的一般观点的文献。你应该全部引用吗?然而，达尔文(1859)的书不仅介绍了一系列新颖的理论，而且使它们变得突出。事实上，在最近一段有趣的反事实历史中，Bowler(2013)认为，如果没有这本书(即，如果达尔文于1832年在海上淹死)，即使考虑到华莱士的工作，现代进化思想的出现也会比19世纪的情况慢得多

{"title":"Citation, credit, and the ambiguous nature of creative science—a wider perspective for Bruun's views","authors":"D. Wilkinson","doi":"10.4033/IEE.V7I1.5267","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.V7I1.5267","url":null,"abstract":"Hans Henrik Bruun (2014) argues that, although assigning credit to past work is important, it is not something that can easily be set about with formal rules—leading to charges of plagiarism if the rules are not followed to the letter. He goes further to suggest that such strict rules may actually stifle creative science and that, in this context, a much greater problem may be the large number of so-called ‘original’ research papers that do no more than reproduce previous findings in new settings (I have much sympathy with this last point, while noting that such studies are also crucial to the meta analysis approach to ecological questions!). Bruun (2014) develops his ideas in the context of ecological examples—here I try to provide a brief, wider context for the discussion drawing on several different areas of science from astronomy to molecular biology. A scientist’s reputation stands or falls on conceiving new ideas or collecting original data. Although there may be a considerable satisfaction in just working in an area of personal fascination irrespective of any credit (this is certainly true of many ecologists with a natural history background), credit does matter. One of the more interesting discussions of this is actually fictional—the novel The Bourbaki gambit by chemist turned novelist and playwright Carl Djerassi (1994). In the novel, a group of late career and somewhat marginalised scientists group together to have fun publishing under a single pseudonym. This scheme falls apart when they discover something truly important (in this alternative history novel, they invent PCR) and suddenly personal priority really matters! If reputation matters so much then surely a rigorous approach to citation matters too (indeed I believe it does but, as with Bruun, I don’t see it as the most important thing in the long term). There is a very practical problem with an insistence on citing the first original source—it’s often completely ambiguous what you should be citing! Most ideas in science emerge over time and don’t suddenly appear in the literature in their final form. The obvious example for the readership of an ecology and evolution journal being the very similar evolutionary ideas of Darwin and Wallace—which do you cite? In fact, it’s more complex than that, as a trawl through the pre-1858 literature can produce many brief discussions that seem to have at least part of the idea of natural selection, and there is a huge pre-Darwinian literature on the general idea of evolution. Should you cite them all? However, Darwin’s (1859) book not only introduced a range of novel theories but made them prominent. Indeed, in an interesting recent counterfactual history, Bowler (2013) suggests that without this book (i.e., if Darwin had drowned at sea in 1832), even allowing for Wallace’s work, modern evolutionary ideas would have emerged much more slowly than was the case in the real 19 th","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70236893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Western and Indigenous sciences: colonial heritage, epistemological status, and contribution of a cross-cultural dialogue 西方和本土科学:殖民遗产、认识论地位和跨文化对话的贡献

IF 0.2

Ideas in Ecology and Evolution

Pub Date : 2014-05-25 DOI: 10.4033/IEE.2014.7.12.C

Marie-Ève Drouin-Gagné

引用次数: 6

Indigenous sciences are not pseudoscience 本土科学不是伪科学

IF 0.2

Ideas in Ecology and Evolution

Pub Date : 2014-05-25 DOI: 10.4033/IEE.2014.7.11.C

Root Gorelick

Given how difficult it is to define science, it is surprising how readily many people consider Indigenous sciences to be pseudoscience. I review definitions of indigenous science , as well as science and pseudoscience . I then proffer that either western or indigenous science is any broadly Bayesian undertaking, i.e. testing and updating hypotheses (prior and posterior probabilities) based on observed data. Western and indigenous sciences simply have different priors, ask different questions, and sometimes use different data, hence they may make very different predictions about very different phenomena. Indigenous sciences seem to have no more myth than do western sciences. I provide examples of where western and indigenous sciences may provide complementary approaches for understanding ecology and evolution.

考虑到给科学下定义是多么困难，令人惊讶的是，许多人如此轻易地认为本土科学是伪科学。我回顾了本土科学的定义，以及科学和伪科学。然后我提出，无论是西方科学还是本土科学，都是广义的贝叶斯事业，即根据观察到的数据测试和更新假设(先验和后验概率)。西方科学和本土科学只是有不同的先验，提出不同的问题，有时使用不同的数据，因此他们可能对非常不同的现象做出非常不同的预测。本土科学似乎没有比西方科学更多的神话。我提供了一些例子，说明西方科学和本土科学可以为理解生态学和进化提供互补的方法。

引用次数: 6

How Stephen Jay Gould wrote Macbeth—Not giving credit where it's due: lazy referencing and ignoring precedence 史蒂芬·杰伊·古尔德是如何写《麦克白》的——不给应得的荣誉:懒惰引用和忽略优先级

IF 0.2

Ideas in Ecology and Evolution

Pub Date : 2014-05-25 DOI: 10.4033/IEE.2014.7.9.C

S. Leather

引用次数: 1

The Four Pillars of Scholarly Publishing: The Future and a Foundation 学术出版的四大支柱:未来与基础

IF 0.2

Ideas in Ecology and Evolution

Pub Date : 2014-04-07 DOI: 10.4033/IEE.2014.7.7.F

Jarrett E. K. Byrnes, E. Baskerville, B. Caron, C. Neylon, C. Tenopir, M. Schildhauer, A. Budden, L. Aarssen, C. Lortie

Scholarly publishing has embraced electronic distribution in many respects, but the tools available through the Internet and other advancing technologies have profound implications for scholarly communication beyond dissemination. We argue that to best serve science, the process of scholarly communication must embrace these advances and evolve. Here, we consider the current state of the process in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB) and propose directions for this evolution and potential change. We identify four pillars for the future of scientific communication: (1) an ecosystem of scholarly products, (2) immediate and open access, (3) open peer review, and (4) full recognition for participating in the process. These four pillars will guide the development of better tools and practices for discovering and sharing scientific knowledge in a modern networked world. The current traditional scholarly publishing model arose in the 1600s, and though it has served its purpose admirably and well, it is time to move forward by embracing open, rapid transparent publication and review.

学术出版在许多方面都接受了电子发行，但通过互联网和其他先进技术提供的工具对学术交流的深远影响超越了传播。我们认为，为了更好地为科学服务，学术交流的过程必须拥抱这些进步并不断发展。在此，我们考虑了生态学和进化生物学(EEB)进程的现状，并提出了这一进化和潜在变化的方向。我们确定了未来科学传播的四大支柱:(1)学术产品生态系统;(2)即时开放获取;(3)开放的同行评审;(4)对参与过程的充分认可。这四个支柱将指导开发更好的工具和实践，以便在现代网络化世界中发现和分享科学知识。目前的传统学术出版模式兴起于17世纪，尽管它已经很好地发挥了它的作用，但现在是时候向前迈进，拥抱开放、快速、透明的出版和审查了。

{"title":"The Four Pillars of Scholarly Publishing: The Future and a Foundation","authors":"Jarrett E. K. Byrnes, E. Baskerville, B. Caron, C. Neylon, C. Tenopir, M. Schildhauer, A. Budden, L. Aarssen, C. Lortie","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2014.7.7.F","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.7.F","url":null,"abstract":"Scholarly publishing has embraced electronic distribution in many respects, but the tools available through the Internet and other advancing technologies have profound implications for scholarly communication beyond dissemination. We argue that to best serve science, the process of scholarly communication must embrace these advances and evolve. Here, we consider the current state of the process in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB) and propose directions for this evolution and potential change. We identify four pillars for the future of scientific communication: (1) an ecosystem of scholarly products, (2) immediate and open access, (3) open peer review, and (4) full recognition for participating in the process. These four pillars will guide the development of better tools and practices for discovering and sharing scientific knowledge in a modern networked world. The current traditional scholarly publishing model arose in the 1600s, and though it has served its purpose admirably and well, it is time to move forward by embracing open, rapid transparent publication and review.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.7.F","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70235425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 12

首页上一页

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Ideas in Ecology and Evolution

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀