The Life Scientists

See the beautiful tattoo visualization via Monica Quast, who is a Ph.D. student at the University of Campinas, Brazil, working on bivalve phylogeography. The organisms depicted are (going clockwise): a cyanobacterium, a foraminiferan, 3 diatoms, an oak leaf and acorn, a Spirogyra cell, a red cage fungus, a stauromedusa, a nautilus, a tardigrade, an ophiuroid, and a badger. \\ At first biologists could draw only small trees, typically with a dozen branches at most. They were held back by the fact that a group of species may possibly be related in many different ways. If a biologist adds more species to a group, the possibilities explode. For 80 species, there are more trees than there are atoms in the known universe. Simply comparing every single tree would be impossible. Fortunately, mathematicians developed statistical methods for searching quickly through potential trees to find the ones that do the best job of explaining all the evidence. - Adriano

With an altmetrics apparatus behind them, why not? - RepoRat

I hear ya Stephanie•CogSciLibrarian - Graham Steel

So, that's what we have been paying for... indirectly, we're buying Mendeley ... - Egon Willighagen

lol - Meg V. Meg

Hmm, I wonder if I still want to use Mendeley, then... - Björn Brembs

EXCELLENT - Tim has > 1.6 M followers !! - Graham Steel

Beall does some smearing of his own. Which doesn't justify the attacks, of course, but *does* mean we need a collective Beall Solution. Ideally such a solution would take Beall out of the journal-judging business while presenting a target much harder to impersonate/troll. I'd say OASPA, except OASPA shows a distinct unwillingness to get its thumb out of its arse. - RepoRat

Duly noted, This "manicure" Joe :-) - Graham Steel

Brought a smile to my face !! - Graham Steel

"The examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There... more... - Amira from Bookmarklet

"I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist" http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51... - golyandro