Welcome to your usual weekly roundup of vaguely interesting stuff that happened in the last week! Enjoy, and let me know if I’ve missed anything out. Previous week.
- Brom et al: Body-size increase in crinoids following the end-Devonian mass extinction.
- Field and Hsiang: A North American stem turaco, and the complex biogeographic history of modern birds.
- Delcourt: Ceratosaur palaeobiology: new insights on evolution and ecology of the southern rulers.
- And this blog post critiquing the taxonomy in the paper, by Micky Mortimer.
Open Science News
- Unhelpful, caustic and slow: the academic community should rethink the way publications are reviewed – LSE Impact Blog.
- The launch of a new open science platform, Generation-R.
- The UK’s Association of Medical Research Charities have partnered with F1000 to launch a new OA publishing platform. Neato.
- African scientists now have their own preprint platform!
- The worst of both worlds: Hybrid Open Access – Lisa Matthias.
- tl,dr: Hybrid sucks.
- The European University Association has published their roadmap on research assessment in the transition to Open Science. Good stuff.
- Schmidt et al: Ten considerations for open peer review.
Stuff I’ve done
- Video of a talk I gave in Graz, Austria, on using social media to get a career boost is now online! Also includes talks from Bianca Kramer, Michaela Vignoli, and Tony Ross-Hellauer.
- Module 5 of the Open Science MOOC has had a face-lift! Let me know what you think 🙂
- Now includes the main module content and 2 tasks, both in markdown and iPython notebook format. Enjoy!
- Built a website for the Foundations for Open Scholarship Strategy Development! It’s still an early phase, so contributions to the website and the strategy itself are more than welcome.
- My first peer review for F1000 Research is now online. Bonus points for spotting the Star Wars reference.
- Blog post about a Reddit-style model of peer review.
- The Lancet are going to start trialling preprints with SSRN. Why is this not under Open Science? Well, because its just a part of Elsevier’s continued lock-in strategy. That’s not open science.