Here is what’s been happening recently in academia, science and scholarly publishing:
If you missed the #ParsimonyGate debacle on Twitter last week, Matt Simon from Wired has a good recap of this online debate over phylogenetic trees.
In other scientific Twitter news, a rapper argued with Neil deGrasse Tyson that the Earth is flat. Diss tracks were dropped on both sides.
In Nature, published a commentary on how to improve post-publication peer review.
A research team for Cambridge Libraries shadowed academics for 48 hours and this is what they found.
The Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) at McGill has decided to go fully “open science,” including making all data completely open and forgoing patent applications.
Jan Velterop thinks that so-called “predatory” journals may be a positive sign for Open Access, and advocates for separating scientific communication from reputation management.
Stephan Lewandowsky and Dorothy Bishop provide an even-handed account of how to distinguish between valid and invalid/abusive scientific criticism.
Two scientists are developing a card game where you try to sabotage the scientific progress of your opponents.
A new study finds that the further along scientists are in their career, their outputs drops while their funding grows – A case for increasing funding to early career researchers.
Adam Ruben has a “funny because it’s true” take on the difficulty of reading scientific articles.
Join us next week for another episode of PLOScast with guest host Mark Johnson, the Director of Contributor Experience and Product Marketing at PLOS. Mark will speak with Alex Wade, the Director of Scholarly Communication at Microsoft Research.
Image Credit: By @5ua – Five Useful Articles