johnstinchcombe.bsky.social
Ecological and evolutionary genetics in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at UofT. Dad, dog lover, unashamed coffee addict.
70 posts
1,717 followers
635 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
I agree!
(plug for one of my former grad student's papers)...
journals.asm.org/doi/full/10....
comment in response to
post
I'm teaching about this topic this week and also found a bunch of my figures and animations-- which I update yearly-- had been taken down.
I used the internet archive to find versions from before the current admin. took over and started breaking things.
comment in response to
post
Does this latest article deserve a response? It’s an opinion published in a predatory journal. The editor of the paper was recent faculty in the same dept as Simard. Let’s carry on with new research please.
comment in response to
post
we wanted a species with a range spanning temperate to tropical.....
comment in response to
post
My grad school lab mate-- Matt Rutter-- had one or a few early life die-offs of experiments with fasciulata before having a year or two where suddenly everything worked.
We tried just about everything on daylength, temperature, R:FR ratio, etc, and just never got nictitans to flower. 🤷🤷♂️🤷♀️.
comment in response to
post
Ooo... neat! Why are the square pots on top of the conetainer racks... there has to be a reason.
FWIW, @tiaharrison.bsky.social had a lot of plans based on growing and crossing C. nictitans, but we were never able to get them to flower in the greenhouse or growth chamber, and then had to pivot.
comment in response to
post
Delete them all w/o conscience, and rely on anything important to be re-sent?
comment in response to
post
Thanks for the citations and the bluesky plug! This was Veronica Chong's Msc work. She found that knocking out genes chosen at random was similar to knocking out genes chosen based on outlier locus scans.
academic.oup.com/jhered/artic...
comment in response to
post
Someone just sent a photo of their dog, Onions, to an 11,000 person faculty listserv, adorable
comment in response to
post
I saw your comment about the technical aspects that would warrant re-review *after* my second post. I get that it will sometimes be necessary and important.
One way of thinking about this: what % of papers that go out for re-review actually really need it?
I think far fewer need it than get it.
comment in response to
post
I think a lot of reviewer burden, emailing & clicking, and processing time could be reduced by AE's being empowered to make more decisions w/o re-review
I think the benefits would outweigh the risks of "still flawed" stuff making it through. It would require more AE time than sending it out again
comment in response to
post
Sincere question: Did it have to go back to you, or is this something that an AE could have looked at and decided based on original ms, original reviews, response letter, and revised ms?
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
That's terrible! Do you know which species that is? And/or have closer range photographs?
comment in response to
post
💯
comment in response to
post
There are real benefits to the site, but the vibe gets toxic quickly.
From my experience, there are also often people holding forth confidently with statements that are just flat out 100%, totally wrong.
Obviously this is a small % of users, but take everything with a giant grain of salt.