Previously published facts a.k.a. branching artefacts

Via a ResearchGate citation alert, I got pointed to a paper by Klak et al. (2020) in PhytoTaxa erecting a new monotypic genus within the Drosanthemeae. I have literally no idea about these plants, but I (obviously in contrast to Klak et al.) now their genetics. A tale of persistent ignorance among renown plant systematicists.

Big Data = No Brain? Pt. 2: Digging deeper

Having being ignored by phylogeneticists for over a decade, maples [GE:Wikipedia/The Maple Society] – the second-most diverse extratropical angiosperm tree genus of the Northern Hemisphere – have come into focus again. And going Big Data. In part 2 of this longread, we'll dig out the little precious information, usually ignored in phylogenomic, "big pattern" analyses.

How predatory is MDPI? Or: The 50 shades of scientific grey

There's an ever-growing grey zone between clearly predatory and legit publishers/ journals. The still exploding number of MDPI journals belong to the shady bunch. Why else would they ask a science drop-out to join the editorial board of Life – the life science journal?

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.

I found mail! From Elsevier, and in my Junk folder (where it belongs)

Got mail from Elsevier, out of sheer courtesy to inform me that a final PDF could be found on ResearchGate that people should pay for to view. Thank God for the Coalition of Responsible Sharing correcting such errors.

Miraculous reconstruction of palaeoaltitude and -temperature using the "Coexistence Approach"

It may look (to some) like a good idea to take modern-day altitudinal ranges of genera to infer a palaeo-altitude of a fossil plant assemblage using a mutually shared range approach. A fresh example from the purportedly peer-reviewed Elsevier journal Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology (PPP).

Dispersing the Impermeable Fog: #3 – declining an invitation to review a pseudo-scientific paper

The Coexistence Approach is a pseudo-science. At least, it's fundamentally flawed in theory and practise. But one journal remains the bastion of true faith. But maybe tides are changing?

Elsevier's research data "not available/will be made available on request" – what will be your choice?

What do you do when authors claim something (showing nothing) that you know can't be true (because you showed otherwise)? Just request the data they used and re-analyse it to check. But this is not how it works. An example from Elsevier's Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution.

Trying to disperse the Impermeable Fog #2: Editors who "entertain" and are not "answerable"

In my last post, I gave a fresh example how the confidential peer review maintains the publication of dubious scientific results. Naturally I confronted the authors of the paper and editors of the journal. With revealing results.

Business as usual – PPP keeps on publishing Coexistence Approach pseudo-results

In 2016 we published two papers demonstrating that the so-called Coexistence Approach (CA) to reconstruct past climates is fundamentally flawed, theoretically and in practise. As consequence there was a drop-down in CA papers disseminated, exclusively, by members of NECLIME, a Germany-centred scientific consortium promoting this pseudo-statistic (and pseudo-scientific) method. But one journal remains faithful. And has nothing to fear thanks to peer review confidentiality.

Age of angiosperms, may palaeobotany rest in peace (and pieces)

How old are the angiosperms? Very trivial to answer, more or less as old as all the other main lineages of living seed plants. Unless you define them in a particular way. And because you are who you are, no-one dares to criticise it. But thanks to predatory publishers, someone did. A tale about ivory towers, opinions presented as facts, the Impermeable Fog shrouding the Forest of Reviews, and the creeping death of palaeobotany. Although it could been the spark to ignite something beautiful.

What I was not allowed to show #2: Networks explaining molecular evolution in wax plants

Thanks to the confidentiality of the review system, experimental research that goes beyond the standard applications may be lost to the Impermeable Fog. In this post, I'll will show several reconstructions I made for a paper of a colleague on Hoya (Asclepioideae), the wax plants.

The growing Grey Zone of scientific publishing

With the open access market booming and the scientific community clinging to shady (“confidential”) peer review, it becomes harder and harder to distinguish between honest and predatory publishers. Grey is the new fashion-colour.

What I was not allowed to show #1: A neighbour-net of seed plants

Even as a professional scientist, I always put a lot of effort in enhancing the graphics of our papers. In some cases, the mighty Wizards of the Forest of Review appreciated the effort, but most didn’t bother. In some cases, the circumstances forced me to dump some pretty nice graphs. In this series of posts, I’ll show what has been lost because of the Impermeable Fog, or because my co-authors were vary it might wake dogs and more evil things lurking in the Forest of Review.

What happens if you try to disperse the Impermeable Fog

Why do bad papers get published in proper journals? Well, mainly because the Impermeable Fog, known as review confidentiality, obscures the entire decision process and ensures no-one can be made responsible. Like in the case of the recently published (pseudo-)phylogeographic study by Zhang et al. (2017) in Tree Genetics & Genomes.

Another Don Quixote gone: Beall’s List of Predatory Journals

Open access publishing is an exploding market, and, hence, has attracted many predators trying to make a quick buck selling the corpse of scientific credibility. But there was one riding against them, but no more.

One date that is missing in many scientific publications

In most journals, the peer-review process is poorly documented. Typically, one is provided only several dates, and possibly the name of the editor. I'll share some light onto the dates found on some of my papers. Review process transparency is, ultimately, the only choice, when these dates should have any value for authors (producers) and readers (consuments).

The review process should be transparent not confidential

A few days ago, I was alerted to a paper on Zelkova by Zhang et al., published in Tree Genetics & Genomes, because the authors cited our study from 2005 (Denk & Grimm 2005). Although, I’m out-of-business, I had to look at it (old habits), and I lost it. How could this pass the review process?

Why starting a science blog after having left professional science?

Simple reason: I'm now free to express my opinion on things.