This seems to be the week of cool meetings I missed. Including:
1) The General Meeting for the American Society for Microbiology, which you can check out at #ASM2015. Carl Zimmer spoke about the hype around microbiome research, and he coined a new word for it: the hyperbolome.
— Joseph McPhee (@JoeBMcPhee) June 1, 2015
— Hannah H-M (@hhollandmoritz) June 1, 2015
2) The World Conference on Research Integrity, which you can check out at #WCRI2015.
— Ivan Oransky (@ivanoransky) June 1, 2015
Not many #wcri2015 updates as wifi bad … main themes here are how to change perverse incentives in science’s reward system; also open data
— Richard Van Noorden (@Richvn) June 1, 2015
3) The International Public Science Events Conference, which you can check out at #IPSEC2015.
4) The Science of Team Science, held at the NIH, which you can follow at #SciTS.
- This hashtag made me aware of Aparna Joshi’s work, including this fascinating 2014 paper: By Whom and When Is Women’s Expertise Recognized? The Interactive Effects of Gender and Education in Science and Engineering Teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, Aparna Joshi.
- And this 2015 one: Who Defers to Whom and Why? Dual Pathways Linking Demographic Differences and Dyadic Deference to Team Effectiveness, Academy of Management Journal, Aparna Joshi and Andrew Knight.
1) I’ve often thought that using more accessible language would help journal articles have more impact, but at least for number of citations, that’s not true, according to a new study: In a Paradox, Study Finds That Long, Jargon-Laden Abstracts Make for More Citations, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Mary Ellen McIntire. But there are other ways that making one’s work accessible can lead to indirect career benefits and impact, not that that should be one’s sole goal, ethically speaking, as this NY Times article discusses: Academics Seek a Big Splash, NY Times, Noam Scheiber. Of course, there are other (perhaps more ethical) reasons to make one’s work accessible, as discussed in this editorial: Why We Should Help People Understand Our Scientific Literature, Conservation Biology, R. W. Abrams. All of these papers get at the question of what exactly impact is, and when it is ethical versus not, which Kirk Englehardt has discussed recently.
2) Speaking of ethics in science, check out my recent response to the NY Times editorial on cheating and retractions in science.
3) And in the big stink of the week, Science Careers published an advice column about sexual harassment in the workplace that immediately drew the rage of social media. It was quickly taken down. You can read more about that conversation here: Science, Not Sexism, Inside Higher Ed, Colleen Flaherty
9) Missed this blog’s lit review from a few weeks ago, but it’s evergreen enough to be relevant now, discussing several recent papers about genetic rescue and gene flow: Gene Flow and Population Fitness, The Molecular Ecologist, Arun Sethuraman