Image: The #CSEETweetShop team. Left to right: Shoshanah Jacobs, Morgan Jackson, Dawn Bazely, your truly, Cylita Guy, and Alex Smith. What a great group!
At the 2018 conference of the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution, I was part of a lunchtime workshop, “The How and Why of Tweeting Science” – along with 5 friends. Here I’ll share my slides and commentary. I hope the other presenters will do the same, and I’ll link to them here as they become available.
Image: Responsibility, by Nathan Siemers CC BY-SA 2.0 via flickr.com
I spend a lot of time talking with students and colleagues about what authorship means, and about what criteria one might use for assigning it. That’s partly because the nature of authorship is both complex and (especially for early-career scientists) critically important. It’s also because my research has evolved in ways that mean I rarely write a single-authored paper any more. In fact, I rarely write a 2- or 3-authored paper any more.
There’s nothing unusual about me (in this respect); the lengths of author lists have been increasing in almost every field. In some fields, they’ve reached startling proportions, with author lists surpassing 5,000. It’s not universally agreed exactly what contributions merit authorship, or what responsibilities coauthors bear. However, one thing we often hear – and I’m pretty sure, one thing I’ve said – is that each coauthor should be willing to take responsibility for the entire paper. Continue reading
Image: A grin without a cat. Cheshire Cat, from Alice in Wonderland, illustration by John Tenniel, public domain.
“Well! I’ve often seen a cat without a grin,” thought Alice “but a grin without a cat! It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!” (Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland)
As you’ve probably read here on Scientist Sees Squirrel, I’m writing a new book. It’s about the Latin names of plants and animals (and I promise, it’s a lot more interesting than it sounds). And in thinking and writing about naming, I’ve come to realize that the way we do biological nomenclature leads to the production of some truly bizarre entities: names without things. Let me explain.
Things without names are a perfectly normal category – even if individual instances of the category tend to be short-lived, because we humans really, really like to name things*. Continue reading
(This is a lightly edited version of a post that originally ran in January 2015. But you probably didn’t see it then.)
Here’s a problem you might not have thought of: did you know you can submit and publish a paper with a coauthor who’s deceased, but not with one who’s in a coma and might recover?
A lot of people have never thought of this, and a lot don’t think it’s a problem worth worrying about. Please bear with me, though, because I think it’s a more important problem than most of us realize – but also one that’s easily avoided.
The unavailable-coauthor problem is actually more general than my coma example. Continue reading
Images: Canada jay, by Gavin Schaefer CC BY 2.0 via wikimedia.org. Or maybe it’s a grey jay. Or a whiskey jack. Cougar, by Eric Kilby CC BY-SA 2.0 via wikimedia.org. Or maybe it’s a puma. Or a painter. Or a mountain lion. Or a catamount. Or a screamer. Or…you get the idea.
It caught my eye, and the media’s, last month: an announcement that the American Ornithological Society would be changing the “official” name of the North American corvid Perisoreus canadensis from “Gray Jay” to “Canada Jay”. The grey/Canada jay* is a wonderful bird – handsome, intelligent, and inquisitive – and “grey jay” sells it short, so I’m completely down with using “Canada jay”. But: the notion that there’s any such thing as an “official” common name, or that the AOU gets to say what it is, is deeply weird. Continue reading
Image: Mexican red-bellied squirrel, Sciurus aureogaster: Dick Culbert CC BY 2.0 via wikimedia.org
Inspired by similar exercises from Small Pond Science and The Lab and Field, I present once more a few of the more interesting search terms by which Scientist Sees Squirrel has been found. These are all real, I swear – and they’re only the tip of the iceberg. About 95% of searches are encrypted, so I don’t see them. Imagine what gems are buried in the encrypted searches!
do wizards need to know calculus Continue reading