One of the biggest problems in peer-reviewed science is editor-bias. So, my answer to Frontiers in Plant Science's nice invitation, even if I would still be in professional science, can only be no!
#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 (11) curiosities (1) data links (3) European (5) France (9) free science (5) funny things (3) Germany (7) in Deutsch (24) infographics (27) introduction (1) Ireland (1) Köppen-Geiger (3) Landtagswahlen (8) languages (5) lost science (2) not science (7) oddities (13) open access (1) open data (2) palaeontology (9) peer review (10) Philosophisches (4) phylo-networks (13) plants (14) politics (26) public interest (17) satire (9) scam (4) science-related (17) Sweden (4) terminology (4) tips (19) travelling (1) USA (18) Wahl-O-Mat (9)
With most-versatile programmes like BEAST at hand, everyone can do a molecular dating. Which makes it even more important that editors and peers check the priors and reasoning behind it. And always should make sure a palaeobotanist (or at least, a palaeogeographer) is one of the peers.
I still have a university e-mail address, for fiscal reasons. Hence, I still get what we call in German Initiativbewerbungen, not solicited applications for joining my working group (I never had one) from people in countries not as happy as Austria. And the one or other phishing mail.