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.
#FightTheFog (16) ancestors (3) animals (3) artwork (7) Austria (2) bad science (7) Beall's legacy (6) bias (3) biogeography (1) branch support (3) Bundestagswahl (6) comment (13) curiosities (1) data links (3) European (8) France (9) free science (5) funny things (3) Germany (9) in Deutsch (26) infographics (31) introduction (1) Ireland (1) Köppen-Geiger (3) Landtagswahlen (9) languages (5) lost science (2) not science (7) oddities (13) open access (1) open data (3) palaeontology (10) peer review (10) Philosophisches (5) phylo-networks (13) plants (12) politics (29) public interest (18) satire (9) scam (4) science-related (18) Sweden (4) terminology (4) tips (20) travelling (1) USA (18) Wahl-O-Mat (10)
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.
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.