Amber E. Budden

Plumage condition affects flight performance in common starlings: implications for developmental homeostasis, abrasion and moult

Variation in length and asymmetry of wing primary feathers can arise from a breakdown of developmental homeostasis, feather abrasion and incomplete growth during moult. Indirect predictions have been made concerning the impact of primary length and asymmetry on the flight ability of birds, but they have not been explicitly tested. Here we provide evidence from both natural variation in primary feather condition and experimental manipulations of primary feather length and asymmetry to indicate that these factors influence aspects of flight performance in the Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris. Damaged and incompletely grown primary feathers reduce escape flight performance. Experimentally reduced primary lengths reduce take-off speed; increased primary asymmetry decreases aerial manoeuvrability. A comparison of the experimental and natural plumage data indicates that birds may be able to adapt to a change in wing morphology, perhaps reducing the effects of feather loss or damage on flight. The results from this study indicate that primary feathers are under strong stabilising selection to maximise developmental homeostasis and reduce feather asymmetry. These findings are also of ecological importance to the damageavoidance and moult strategies of these birds. This is the first experimental evidence to indicate a quantitative reduction in flight performance with feather lengths and asymmetries typical of those observed during flight feather moult and feather damage in any species.

Bang for Your Buck: Rejection Rates and Impact Factors in Ecological Journals

When choosing where to submit their research for publication, most ecologists are concerned with journal impact factor, but they are also concerned with the likelihood that their manuscripts will be accepted. Based on a survey of ecologists, we found different degrees of relative concern for these journal attributes depending on author experience and gender. However, the ability of authors to choose among journals based on these journal attributes is limited: while journal impact factors are published regularly, journal rejection rates are not. We obtained, by permission, rejection rate data for a sample of 60 ecology journals for the year 2004. As expected, journals with higher impact factors also have higher rejection rates, but the ratio of (rejection rate) / (impact factor) increases sharply with decreasing impact factor below 1.76. Journals with impact factors below this value therefore provide relatively low payback in terms of impact against cost as estimated by rejection rate. We discuss alternative possible interpretations of this relationship and alternative criteria that might affect an authors decision about journal choice. Most importantly, our analysis indicates that the ability to make informed choices requires that journals publish their rejection rates annually. PREAMBLE How does an author decide where to submit a paper for publication? This important decision is made routinely throughout the career of a typical researching scientist/academic. The choices made can profoundly affect the trajectory, rate of progress, and status of ones research career. Necessarily, the subject category of the journals under consideration must be concordant with the research topic of the paper. However after this, most authors in the field of ecology at least, are usually still presented with more than one choice of a topically suitable subset of candidate journals. And, when the paper is rejected (an experience that few if any manage to avoid completely), the author is commonly inclined to iteratively select alternative journals.

The Influence of Author Gender, National Language and Number of Authors on Citation Rate in Ecology

Citation metrics are widely used as a surrogate measure of scientific merit; however, these indices may be sensitive to factors and influences unrelated to merit. We examined citation rates for 5883 articles in relation to number of authors, first authors primary language, and gender. Citation rates were unrelated to primary language and gender but increased with author number. These findings add to a growing body of indirect evidence for potential attitudinal bias in the perceived merit of publications within ecology.

To Name or Not to Name: The Effect of Changing Author Gender on Peer Review

The peer review model is one of the most important tools used in science to assess the relative merit of research. We manipulated a published article to reflect one of the following four author designations: female, male, initial, and no name provided. This article was then reviewed by referees of both genders at various stages of scientific training. Name changing did not influence acceptance rates or quality ratings. Undergraduate referees were less critical than graduate students or postdoctoral researchers, independent of gender. However, female postdoctoral researchers were the most critical referees: Their rejection rates were the highest and quality ratings the lowest, regardless of the author name provided. Contrary to previous reports in the literature, there was no evidence of same-gender preferences. This study strongly suggests that female postgraduate biologists may apply different expectations to peer review.

Resource allocation varies with parental sex and brood size in the asynchronously hatching green-rumped parrotlet (Forpus passerinus)

When eggs hatch asynchronously, offspring arising from last-hatched eggs often exhibit a competitive disadvantage compared with their older, larger nestmates. Strong sibling competition might result in a pattern of resource allocation favoring larger nestlings, but active food allocation towards smaller offspring may compensate for the negative effects of asynchronous hatching. We examined patterns of resource allocation by green-rumped parrotlet parents to small and large broods under control and food-supplemented conditions. There was no difference between parents and among brood sizes in visit rate or number of feeds delivered, although females spent marginally more time in the nest than males. Both male and female parents preferentially fed offspring that had a higher begging effort than the remainder of the brood. Mean begging levels did not differ between small and large broods, but smaller offspring begged more than their older nestmates in large broods. Male parents fed small offspring less often in both brood sizes. Female parents fed offspring evenly in small broods, while in large broods they fed smaller offspring more frequently, with the exception of the very last hatched individual. These data suggest male parrotlets exhibit a feeding preference for larger offspring—possibly arising from the outcome of sibling competition—but that females practice active food allocation, particularly in larger brood sizes. These differential patterns of resource allocation between the sexes are consistent with other studies of parrots and may reflect some level of female compensation for the limitations imposed on smaller offspring by hatching asynchrony.

Systematic Variation in Reviewer Practice According to Country and Gender in the Field of Ecology and Evolution

The characteristics of referees and the potential subsequent effects on the peer-review process are an important consideration for science since the integrity of the system depends on the appropriate evaluation of merit. In 2006, we conducted an online survey of 1334 ecologists and evolutionary biologists pertaining to the review process. Respondents were from Europe, North America and other regions of the world, with the majority from English first language countries. Women comprised a third of all respondents, consistent with their representation in the scientific academic community. Among respondents we found no correlation between the time typically taken over a review and the reported average rejection rate. On average, Europeans took longer over reviewing a manuscript than North Americans, and females took longer than males, but reviewed fewer manuscripts. Males recommended rejection of manuscripts more frequently than females, regardless of region. Hence, editors and potential authors should consider alternative sets of criteria, to what exists now, when selecting a panel of referees to potentially balance different tendencies by gender or region.

Behind the shroud: a survey of editors in ecology and evolution

An online survey of ecology and evolution editors was conducted to assess the characteristics of journal editors and describe manuscript-handling practices. A total of 450 respondents – representing 155 ecology and evolution journals – participated. The following patterns were detected: (1) there are more male than female editors; (2) the greater the number of manuscripts handled per year by editors, the lower the proportion are rejected without review; and (3) previous review time, scientific status, and seniority of reviewers are factors that editors consider when selecting a reviewer. This research highlights the potential importance of editor characteristics in the peer-review process; we suggest that increased transparency promotes both recognition of the editor population and more equitable reviewing practices.

Does publication in top-tier journals affect reviewer behavior?

We show that when ecologists act as reviewers their reported rejection rates recommended for manuscripts increases with their publication frequency in high impact factor journals. Rejection rate however does not relate to reviewer age. These results indicate that the likelihood of getting a paper accepted for publication may depend upon factors in addition to scientific merit. Multiple reviewer selection for a given manuscript therefore should consider not only appropriate expertise, but also reviewers that have variable publication experience with a range of different journals to ensure balanced treatment. Interestingly since age did not relate to rejection rates, more senior scientists are not necessarily more jaded in reviewing practices.

Skills and Knowledge for Data-Intensive Environmental Research

&NA; The scale and magnitude of complex and pressing environmental issues lend urgency to the need for integrative and reproducible analysis and synthesis, facilitated by data‐intensive research approaches. However, the recent pace of technological change has been such that appropriate skills to accomplish data‐intensive research are lacking among environmental scientists, who more than ever need greater access to training and mentorship in computational skills. Here, we provide a roadmap for raising data competencies of current and next‐generation environmental researchers by describing the concepts and skills needed for effectively engaging with the heterogeneous, distributed, and rapidly growing volumes of available data. We articulate five key skills: (1) data management and processing, (2) analysis, (3) software skills for science, (4) visualization, and (5) communication methods for collaboration and dissemination. We provide an overview of the current suite of training initiatives available to environmental scientists and models for closing the skill‐transfer gap.

With great power comes great responsibility: the importance of rejection, power, and editors in the practice of scientific publishing.

Peer review is an important element of scientific communication but deserves quantitative examination. We used data from the handling service manuscript Central for ten mid-tier ecology and evolution journals to test whether number of external reviews completed improved citation rates for all accepted manuscripts. Contrary to a previous study examining this issue using resubmission data as a proxy for reviews, we show that citation rates of manuscripts do not correlate with the number of individuals that provided reviews. Importantly, externally-reviewed papers do not outperform editor-only reviewed published papers in terms of visibility within a 5-year citation window. These findings suggest that in many instances editors can be all that is needed to review papers (or at least conduct the critical first review to assess general suitability) if the purpose of peer review is to primarily filter and that journals can consider reducing the number of referees associated with reviewing ecology and evolution papers.