Pushy is the new predatory when it comes to scientific publishing

I have to admire how the full, semi- or quasi-predatory publishers never run out of new ideas to lure the needing (stuck in the single-blind peer review), unwitting (younglings who don't know better) or cheating (pseudo-scientists and those on the payroll of e.g. the pharmaceutical or medicinal industry) to their allegedly scientific and peer-reviewed publication platforms.

Spam, spam, spam, spam – is it time for an autobiography?

Another treasure, an offer one can not possibly reject, found in my junk folder. The "Oasis Publishing Group" wants to cherish my "outstanding contribution to the scientific community" with an autobiography.

Lösen die Grünen die SPD als Volkspartei ab?

... fragte die SZ dieser Tage und ludt zur Online-Diskussion ein (powered by Disqus). Mein Kommentar (hier mein Disqus-Profil) wurde dummerweise als "Spam" gekennzeichnet und nicht publiziert (bisher), vermutlich wegen den Links zum Political Compass (non-profit) und unserem Genealogical World of Phylogenetic Networks blog (wir verdienen auch kein Geld damit; es lebe die algorithmen-gestützte Zensur). Deswegen hier der Volltext (leicht verändert).

The Easter Egg – everyone can (visually) dive into Earth's past

As my first Easter Egg post, I advertised the most important French hebdomaire, weekly newspaper, Le Canard enchainé (lit. the Chained Duck), something you can't find in the virtual world. This year it is something more peculiar, literally a virtual (version of our) world. Well, worlds, the bygone ones.

How to interpret bootstrap values?

A search led me to a question on ResearchGate (RG) issued five years ago: How can I interpret bootstrap values on phylogenetic trees built with maximum likelihood? Quite a bunch people answered it, but, to my mind, only provided easy answers, not the critical ones.

Do you want your own Wikipedia page, too?

Don't you have that feeling from time to time that your life's work is not properly cherished? Politicians that no-one likes get Wikipedia pages, but not you? Well, just hire a professional Wikipedia page editor.

The grey zone between obvious and less obvious scientific crankery

A tweet pointed me to a post with an interesting title "How to spot palaeontological crankery" by Mark Witton which includes (in the second part) "10 Red flags and pointers for spotting crank palaeontology" for non-experts. As an expert, I cannot help but to note that most of the ten points also apply to proper palaeontological science as well.

Peer review transparency reveals scientific provincialism

Recently, my favourite journal (PeerJ), policy and handling-wise, picked a half-rotten apple sharing the fate of other science-before-profit publishing projects such as the Public Library of Science and Frontiers-in: the more people jump into the boat, the higher the chance the peer review fails. But thanks to peer review transparency, we can see why.