Sep 292011
 

I just noticed that an old publication of mine has a typo in the title on the Nature website “Animal mitochondrial DMA recombination”, anyone want to guess what the error is? Web of Science has the correct title, Pubmed has the correct title, and it used to be correct on the Nature website, but somehow they have gone there and broken it. It’s an easy typo to make, M and N are adjacent keys. Easy if you are retyping stuff- but who on earth retypes journal article titles? You are professionals, copy and paste it from a reliable source. Jesus.

What makes it worse is that when this paper (the paper that got me a job) first came out early on the Nature website they had spelled my name wrong! Adjacent keys typo again. They fixed it eventually, but it took a while. When you are a postdoc applying for jobs it only adds to the stress.

So I decided to email them to let them know. After about 10 minutes looking for an appropriate way to contact them on the website I’ve just given up. Hey, I’ve got a job now, and it makes Nature look stupid not me.

Lunt, D. H., and B. C. Hyman (1997) Nature 387:247-247. PDF Animal mitochondrial DNA recombination (no doi in my citations anymore as it points to a webpage with a stupid unprofessional typo).

Jun 182008
 

Just came across the 2007 impact factors for evolutionary biology journals. I think these are only recently available? Anyway no great surprises I guess, but good to see that MBE and Syst Biol are doing so well

  1. TRENDS ECOL EVOL 14.79
  2. ANNU REV ECOL EVOL S 10.340
  3. SYSTEMATIC BIOL 8.802
  4. MOL BIOL EVOL 6.438
  5. MOL ECOL 5.169
  6. CLADISTICS 4.642
  7. AM NAT 4.543
  8. EVOLUTION 4.502
  9. BMC EVOL BIOL 4.091
  10. MOL PHYLOGENET EVOL 3.994

Of course impact factors are a tiny part of judging good science, but for those of us in the UK whose careers are periodically assessed by our colleagues using only a hazy interpretation of Impact Factors, stats like this are good to know.