Today, available for the first time, you can read my 2004 paper A survey of dinosaur diversity by clade, age, place of discovery and year of description . It’s freely available (CC By 4.0) as a PeerJ Preprint. It’s one of those papers that does exactly what it says on the tin — you should be able to find some interesting patterns in the diversity of your own favourite dinosaur group.

{.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-9864 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“9864” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2014/02/25/time-running-out-for-peerj-free-publication-vouchers/dodo-skeleton-flipped/” orig-file=“https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/dodo-skeleton-flipped.jpg” orig-size=“768,687” comments-opened=“1”

Today (12th February) is the one-year anniversary of the first PeerJ papers! As Matt put it in an email this morning: That’s exactly right.

{.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-9309 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“9309” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2013/11/22/want-to-publish-for-free-in-peerj/triceratops-dorsal-full/” orig-file=“https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/triceratops-dorsal-full.jpg” orig-size=“2823,1117” comments-opened=“1”

It shouldn’t come as a huge surprise to regular readers that PeerJ is Matt’s and my favourite journal. Reasons include its super-fast turnaround, beautiful formatting that doesn’t look like a facsimile of 1980s printed journals, and its responsiveness to authors and readers.

You know how every time you point out a problem to legacy publishers — like when they’re caught misrepresenting their open-access offerings they explain that it’s very complicated and will take months to fix? Here’s how that should work: To summarise: I found a bug in the PeerJ system;

A while back, Elsevier launched its journal finder, tagged “Find the perfect journal for your article”. Since our priorities in choosing a journal are a bit different from Elsevier, here is the SV-POW! journal finder. (That’s version 2, by the way.

Here’s a thing … Looks like the first ever mention of PeerJ on this blog was a year and nine days ago. All we said in that first post was “… the proliferation of other publishing experiments such as F1000 Research and PeerJ …” with no further comment. That was just before the formal launch of PeerJ, which was on 12 June.

Gah! No time, no time. I am overdue on some things, so this is a short pointer post, not the thorough breakdown this paper deserves. The short, short version: Schachner et al. (2013) is out in PeerJ, describing airflow in the lungs of Nile crocs, and showing how surprisingly birdlike croc lungs actually are.

Matt and I were discussing “portable peer-review” services like Rubriq, and the conversation quickly wandered to the subject of PeerJ. Then I realised that that seems to be happening with all our conversations lately. Here’s a partial transcript. Mike: I don’t see portable peer-review catching on. Who’s going to pay for it unless journals give an equal discount from APCs?