1) The controversy over the paper by Williams and Ceci on gender bias in academic hiring (or the lack thereof) that I mentioned last week and the week before continues: Science Careers published a detailed article on it, which reignited the controversy. A summary of what people took issue with in the Science Careers article can be found here.
2) Two high-profile articles address problems with common practices in statistical methods for science and how they could be avoided: Beyond Bar and Line Graphs: Time for a New Data Presentation Paradigm, PLoS Biology, Tracey L. Weissgerber, Natasa M. Milic, Stacey J. Winham, & Vesna D. Garovic and Statistics: P Values Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg, Nature News, Jeffrey T. Leek & Roger D. Peng.
3) Pew Research Center’s new report on trends in news media is well worth a look: State of the News Media 2015, Pew Research Center, Amy Mitchell
4) This article had a really surprising twist. Normally, in science communication, we talk about the importance of listening to learn about your audience. But in the case of vaccination, says van der Linden, doctors will have better success when telling parents it’s time to vaccinate a child than asking parents if they want to. How to Combat Distrust of Science, Scientific American, Sander van der Linden
5) A new method for studying invasive species introductions using evolutionary biology: Using ABC and Microsatellite Data to Detect Multiple Introductions of Invasive Species from a Single Source, Heredity, A. Benazzo, S. Ghirotto, S. T. Vilaça, & S. Hoban. The article is behind a paywall, but you can read a press release here.
6) I just love the word kleptoparasite. Here’s a model for lunch-stealing bullies: The Effect of Kleptoparasite and Host Numbers on the Risk of Food-Stealing in an Avian Assemblage, Journal of Avian Biology, Kevin A. Wood, Richard A. Stillman, & John D. Goss-Custard
8) Basically, a reviewer made a totally sexist comment in a peer review, and social media called him out on it: It’s a Man’s World–For One Reviewer, at Least, Retraction Watch, amarcus41. PLoS One got rid of the reviewer and the editor working on the paper.