Recommended reads #146

Standard

It is stunning to learn that so many people think that we are paid to be sources for journalists. [update: I misread this. The piece reports that a majority of people think that sources pay journalists to be included in their stories. Which is perhaps even more outrageous?]

How getting 8 hours of sleep gave me the energy to overcommit again

Do you ever wonder how damaging a mean-spirited peer review an be for the professional trajectory of junior scientists who are just starting to publish their own work? Let’s find out! Here’s a study, anybody who has submitted a paper can (and hopefully will) participate. It takes just a few minutes: “You are invited to participate in an anonymous research study: Understanding the impacts of unprofessional peer reviews on early career scientists.”

Sorry, but Jane Eyre Isn’t the Romance You Want It to Be

Exam wrappers

Scientists must speak up for the Green New Deal

It’s nice to see Science hop aboard the reimbursement-is-a-bad-thing train

The MOMA is redoing its exhibits to create a more inclusive representation of the history of art

But I’m not in the picture

STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes

It is very bad news when an invasive species is so deadly

A manual for mentors and mentees involved in undergraduate summer research

The “secret” for excellent mentoring

We can believe women and seek due process at the same time

Men know what consent is

The magical thinking of guys who love logic

NIH isn’t doing enough about sexual misconduct, but they’ve apparently started doing something, and now at least acknowledge that they haven’t been doing enough, and apologized.

Gender, representation, and cultural shifts in ecology

Some students who applied for NSF graduate fellowships to do research in plant pathology reportedly had their proposals dismissed from review because, allegedly, they were tagged as being of clinical significance and deemed ineligible. The notion here is that a bot screened the proposals out because of terminology that is similar to human pathology.

Using open education isn’t just a ‘nice to have’ when students are starving

On the hidden curriculum, from a person who studies it

Are there two schools of ecology?

Was Douglas Adams a seer?

How to succeed at a teaching demo

I’m a Black Female Software Engineer and this is why I’m not going to help you with diversity at work

The far-reaching effects of campuses’ mistreatment of senior faculty of color

2 thoughts on “Recommended reads #146

  1. That first link Terry – did you misread it or did I look at the wrong item? The only one that seems to relate to what you describe states that it’s the journalists who get paid by their sources. Which is even crazier than the reverse….

    • Thanks Jeff – I did misread this! You are correct. (If I recall correctly, I read a tweet that said what I said, and then I clicked through, and with that tweet in mind, didn’t read carefully enough to discover that I misread it or that it was wrong. Regardless, I was wrong).

You can leave a comment anonymously, just don't give your name or email.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s