Society for Neuroscience responds to open letter

On August 21, 2014, we sent an open letter to SfN about their new open access journal, eNeuro. Today, SfN contacted me directly by email with the following response. Since their email was in response to open correspondence, did not say it was confidential, and was sent by Communications & Public Affairs, I am assuming implied permission to share. As far as I know, their response has not been published elsewhere. I will write my detailed reaction to this soon. For now, I would just like to point out that SfN has not addressed any of our concerns or recommendations. 

——————————————————————————

from:  Allen Segal [email address redacted]
to:  “emck31@gmail.com” <emck31@gmail.com>
date:  Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:03 PM
subject:  Responding to Open Letter to SfN

Dear Dr. McKiernan:

We received your letter regarding eNeuro, the new open-access journal from the Society for Neuroscience.

In the ever-changing environment of scientific publishing, we appreciate your interest in the issues relating to launching an online-only journal. As we move forward with this new SfN effort, we are committed to taking into consideration all of the many facets of online publishing and how they affect the audiences concerned: the general public, scientists, authors, and the field.

With that in mind, we appreciate your letter and its contributions to the dialogue about eNeuro, and to the broader discussion of scientific publication in the digital age.

Sincerely,
Allen

sfnlogo

 

 

Allen Segal
Senior Director, Communications & Public Affairs
Society for Neuroscience
[SfN address and contact information redacted]

Register today to attend Neuroscience 2014 in Washington, DC – the premier venue for neuroscientists to present emerging science, learn from experts, advance careers, and experience much more.

——————————————————————————-

Response from Gordon Nelson, President of CSSP

The following is a response from Gordon Nelson, President of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP), to my open letter. I received this response from Dr. Nelson by email on September 18, 2014. He has granted me permission to publish it here. 

While Dr. Nelson and I may not agree on several points, I am very grateful to him for responding. It shows a willingness to engage in dialogue.  I think it is important others are able to read his views and consider both sides of the conversation. My hope is this will generate discussion that can lead to solutions for increasing access to published research. 

——————————————————————————-

Dear Dr. McKiernan,

Science, mathematics, and science and mathematics education societies over the years have worked hard to enhance journal access. Their journal prices are at a fraction of that of commercial publishers, there are institutional rates depending upon the kind of institution, there are special student and developing country rates for journals. Hybrid journals allow scientists to choose early access by readers if they desire it.  Editors are making key articles available for free.   And societies have worked to eliminate page charges to enhance access to their publications for submission by scientists from around the world.

Open access advocates continue to ignore the impact that proposals like FASTR would have on societies.  The revenues from journals help fund many STEM services including, career services, young scientist mentoring, meetings, awards, STEM education programs, public outreach, to name a few of their services.  The science community will be less healthy in their absence.  Proposals like FASTR provide a one size fits all approach, when data clearly show that journal half-lives vary by discipline.  The health sciences are not a good model for the rest of science and engineering.

What is the impact of $3000-3500 publication fees.  Where will scientists (let alone from developing countries) get that money. Grants are not going to increase. The impact is fewer publications and fewer students getting funding, hardly a desirable outcome.

It is said that “citizens who pay for the research should have free access.”  FASTR requirements would apply even if data cited are not the major focus of the paper. As I talk with colleagues, many papers are written after the grant is over.  The grant is not paying for the writing of the paper.  The agency has received a report ending the grant.

For societies open access has come at a time after a serious recession, and at a time when the US government has many barriers for Federal scientists to attend scientific meetings, thus impacting meeting revenue.

I fully agree that “it will take all of us to find sustainable solutions.”  The first step is to acknowledge that nothing is free. Mounting a journal is not free. Transferring costs from subscribers to authors is hardly a solution.  The second step is the recognition that scientific societies are a different kind of publisher. Pushing solutions where the health of not-for profit scientific societies is significantly diminished and commercial publishers further enhance their market share is hardly desirable.

Sustainable solutions exist based on a two year starting embargo which will allow societies to function, and provide free access to a large and increasing majority of the literature.  Again, societies are in favor of enhanced access.  Open access advocates and societies need to work for a common solution based on economic reality, to provide the broadest benefits for all stakeholders.  Unfortunately, that has yet to happen.

Best,

Gordon Nelson
President
Council of Scientific Society Presidents

——————————————————————————-

Open letter to Gordon Nelson, President of CSSP

This is an open letter to Gordon Nelson, President of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP). I delivered this letter to Dr. Nelson by email on September 18, 2014.

——————————————————————————-

Dear Dr. Nelson,

I am writing in response to your interview on The Scholarly Kitchen  blog, published August 25, 2014. As a scientist and member of scientific societies, including one with representation in CSSP,  I am concerned about your answers to questions regarding public access to research. For example:

Q: Do you see any better alternatives to solving the public access challenge?

A: Frankly, I am unclear what the public access challenge is. Who does not have access? I am not at a large university. I have always been able to get papers I needed over the years.

Who does not have access? Citizens whose tax dollars pay for research do not have access. Patients who want to research their own medical conditions do not have access. Educators who would like to incorporate the latest scientific discoveries into their curricula do not have access. Scientists at institutions who cannot afford journal subscriptions do not have access.

I am one of those scientists. Over the last three years, working in Puerto Rico and now Mexico, I have struggled to get access to the literature I need to do my research. Perhaps more frustrating than that is watching my students struggle because they lack access, too. I have written about my experiences with a lack of access and the need for open access. 

However, you do not have to take my word on the gravity of the problem. If you would like to read personal stories from other people who do not have access and how this affects them, please visit whoneedsaccess.org. If you would like to see data on when and where people are being denied access, please visit openaccessbutton.org – more than 9,000 paywalls registered all over the world in less than one year of operation.

The public access challenge is real, and it will take all of us to find sustainable solutions. I encourage you, in your capacity as President of CSSP, to publicly acknowledge the seriousness of this challenge and to support public access initiatives, such as the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act. Scientific societies and science as a whole can only benefit from increasing worldwide access to information.

I will be publishing this letter openly on my blog, and ask that you allow any response you might give to also be published openly. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Erin C. McKiernan, Ph.D.
Cuernavaca, Mexico
Email: emck31@gmail.com
Twitter: @emckiernan13
Website: emckiernan.wordpress.com

——————————————————————————-

Open letter to the Society for Neuroscience

The following open letter has been delivered to the Society for Neuroscience and published online in The Winnower. Thanks to everyone who contributed to writing the letter, shared with colleagues, and signed.

——————————————————————————-

Dear Society for Neuroscience,

This is an open letter concerning the recent launch of the new open access journal, eNeuro.

We welcome the diversification of journal choices for authors looking for open access venues, as well as the willingness of eNeuro to accept negative results and study replications, its membership in the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium, the publication of peer review syntheses alongside articles, and the requirement that molecular data be publicly available.

As strong supporters of open access, we welcome the commitment of the Society to making the works it publishes freely and openly available. However, we are concerned with several aspects of the specific approach, and outline herein a number of suggestions that would allow eNeuro to provide the full benefits of open access to the communities the journal aims to serve.

 Our first concern relates to the specific choice of license. The purpose of open access is to promote not just access to published content, but, equally important, its reuse. The default use of a CC BY-NC license places unreasonable restrictions on the reuse of articles published in eNeuro, and is incompatible with the standards of open access as set out by the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). NC restrictions have significant negative impact, limiting the ability to reuse material for educational purposes and advocacy to the detriment of scholarly communication. NC-encumbered materials, for example, cannot be used on Wikipedia or easily incorporated into Open Educational Resources. The NC clause also creates ambiguities and uncertainties (see for example, NC Licenses Considered Harmful) and there is little evidence on benefits of the clause to justify its use. In contrast, the value of the CC BY license is outlined in detail by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. How will authors or the broader community benefit from restrictions on the commercial reuse of eNeuro content? The eNeuro fees policy acknowledges CC BY-NC is incompatible with the requirement of funders such as Research Councils UK and  Wellcome Trust, and offers their authors the solution to upgrade to CC BY for a $500 surcharge. This penalizes authors funded by such agencies, as well others who choose to adhere to BOAI principles. We believe that the only way for eNeuro to deliver on its open access commitment is to make all articles CC-BY, and to set the fees to an appropriate level to support this choice.

Our second concern relates to data access. We commend the journal’s requirement that all molecular data be publicly available, but we believe the policy on sharing other types of data should be improved. The current language does not guarantee data will be made available, does not speak to the terms of data licensing, nor describes a course of action if a request for data is not fulfilled. The criterion of “appropriate scientific use” is also vague:  Would reuse of data for educational purposes, for example, meet that criterion, and who would make that decision? Open data aids in verification and replication of results, creation of new analysis tools, and can “fuel new discoveries”. The value of open data has been recognized by the Allen Institute for Brain Science, the BRAIN Initiative, and the Human Brain Project. Immediate sharing of all data types in an open repository (preferably under CC0) should be a requirement, unless prohibited by law (e.g., privacy laws). Several flexible outlets, such as Figshare and DataDryad, are available that make this easy and cost-effective.

Finally, while we commend eNeuro’s commitment to transparent peer review, we worry that only publishing a synthesis may sacrifice the richness inherent to the review process. We believe the neuroscience community would be better-served by having access to the complete reports from reviewers, as offered by PeerJ, several Biomed Central journals, and others. Reviews should also be licensed CC BY to allow for reuse in teaching materials, for example. Reviewers can be provided a mechanism to communicate confidentially with editors, removing the risk associated with making the full reviews publicly available. Reviewers should also be given the opportunity to sign their reviews for added transparency and to receive due credit for their work (e.g., through Publons).

Based on the above points, we recommend that eNeuro:

  • Makes CC BY the default license and provides equal pricing for all CC licenses;
  • Provides a transparent calculation of its article processing charges based on the publishing practices of the Society for Neuroscience and explains how additional value created by the journal will measure against the prices paid by the authors;
  • Considers offering full waivers to authors, especially those from low-income countries, who are unable to afford any publication fees;
  • Requires authors to deposit their data in a public repository (preferably under CC0), unless there are legal or ethical reasons not to do so;
  • Publishes full individual reviewer reports (CC BY licensed) alongside each article.

We hope the Society for Neuroscience will collaborate with the academic community to facilitate the dissemination of scientific knowledge through a journal committed to fully embracing the principles of open access.

 We kindly request that you allow your response(s) to be made public along with this letter, and look forward to hearing your response soon.

 

Signatories -

Please note that the views expressed here represent those of the individuals and not the institutions or organizations with which they are affiliated.

  1. Erin C. McKiernan, independent scientist, SfN member
  2. Marco Arieli Herrera-Valdez, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
  3. Christopher R. Madan, University of Alberta
  4. Philippe Desjardins-Proulx, Ph.D. student
  5. Anders Eklund, Linköping University, Sweden
  6. M Fabiana Kubke, University of Auckland
  7. Alex O. Holcombe, University of Sydney
  8. Graham Steel, Open Science, Scotland
  9. Diano F. Marrone, Wilfrid Laurier University
  10. Charles Oppenheim, Professor, independent
  11. Zen Faulkes, The University of Texas-Pan American
  12. Jonathan P. Tennant, Imperial College London
  13. Nicholas M. Gardner, Marshall University
  14. Avinash Thirumalai, East Tennessee State University
  15. Travis Park, Monash University & Museum Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
  16. Ben Meghreblian, criticalscience.com, London, UK
  17. Sean Kaplan, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
  18. Chris Chambers, Professor of cognitive neuroscience, Cardiff University, SfN member
  19. Joshua M. Nicholson, Founder of thewinnower.com, PhD Student Virginia Tech
  20. Jan Velterop, BOAI signatory and past Director of BioMed Central
  21. Timothée Poisot, University of Canterbury
  22. Jérémy Anquetin, Section d’archéologie et paléontologie, Switzerland
  23. Liz Allen, ScienceOpen
  24. Johannes Björk, Institute of Marine Sciences, Barcelona, Spain
  25. Ross Mounce, University of Bath
  26. Scott Edmunds, GigaScience, BGI Hong Kong
  27. Mayteé Cruz-Aponte, Universidad de Puerto Rico – Cayey
  28. Joseph R. Hancock, Montana State University-Bozeman
  29. Nazeefa Fatima, University of Huddersfield, UK
  30. Nitika Pant Pai, McGill University, Montreal
  31. Elizabeth Silva, San Francisco, CA
  32. Björn Brembs, University of Regensburg, Germany
  33. Gerard Ridgway, University of Oxford, UK
  34. Pietro Gatti-Lafranconi, University of Cambridge, UK
  35. Xianwen Chen, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway
  36. Jacinto Dávila, Universidad de Los Andes
  37. Benjamin de Bivort, Harvard University
  38. Stephen Beckett, Ph.D. student, University of Exeter
  39. Mythili Menon, University of Southern California
  40. Adam Choraziak, behavioural strategist at RedJelly marketing
  41. Graham Triggs, Symplectic
  42. Guillaume Dumas, Institut Pasteur, FR
  43. Jeffrey W. Hollister, University of Rhode Island (adjunct)
  44. Célya Gruson-Daniel, Centre Virchow-Villermé, Université Paris Descartes, FR
  45. Gary S. McDowell, Tufts University, USA
  46. Pierre-Alexandre Klein, Institute of Neuroscience, Université de Louvain
  47. Julien Laroche, Akoustic Arts R&D Lab, Paris
  48. Alex Thome, University of Rochester
  49. Nicolas Guyon, Karolinska Institutet
  50. Sibele Fausto, University of São Paulo, Brazil
  51. Nonie Finlayson, The Ohio State University, SfN member
  52. Dalmeet Singh Chawla, Imperial College
  53. John Wilbanks, Chief Commons Officer, Sage Bionetworks
  54. David Carroll, Medical Student, Queen’s University Belfast
  55. Noelia Martínez-Molina, Brain Cognition and Plasticity Lab, Barcelona University
  56. Maximilian Sloan,  Laboratory of Molecular Neurodegeneration and Gene Therapy, University of Oxford
  57. Stephen Eglen, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, SfN member

——————————————————————————-

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to acknowledge Jon Tennant and his open letter to The American Association for The Advancement of Science (AAAS) as inspiration for this letter (Tennant et al. , 2014).

SfN removes exclusive license requirement for eNeuro

Using the open letter to the AAAS as a template, this last Saturday (August 16), I drafted a letter to the Society for Neuroscience about their new open access journal, eNeuro. As with the AAAS letter, the letter to SfN is open for anyone to read, comment on, or sign. Early in the editing process, Fabiana Kubke (@Kubke) brought it to my attention that eNeuro‘s policies stated that while authors would retain copyright, they would be required to grant an exclusive license to SfN as part of their publishing agreement. SfN would then publish articles under a Creative Commons license. Together*, we wrote a paragraph objecting to the requirement for an exclusive license:

Our first concern relates to the copyright policy of eNeuro. The journal’s policy states that authors will retain copyright but must grant the Society an exclusive license to publish. An exclusive license is in conflict with the tenets of open access, as defined by the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), and does not reflect the aims of the Creative Commons licenses to allow reuse. The policy is also vague on the specific rights authors, their institutions and third parties have under the terms of this exclusive license, including whether they are allowed to deposit the publisher version of their article in open repositories or personal websites, or permitted to deposit an HTML version on sites that would allow updating, commenting and translations of the article. These rights must be preserved for articles to be BOAI-compliant open access.

This paragraph, along with a related question I posed on Twitter, generated a lot of lively discussion, leading to this important post by Justin Kiggins (@neuromusic). I admit, I may be wrong that an exclusive license violates the legal terms of CC licenses (see, however, this comment from Charles Oppenheim @CharlesOppenh). And I am still not sure about the reading of BOAI in this context. Putting the legal arguments aside, however, I think most of us agreed that an exclusive license is not only not necessary for open access publishing, it is a bad deal for authors and is not in agreement with the values of open access:

I asked for suggestions on how to rewrite the paragraph in the open letter to clarify. Michael Eisen (@mbeisenoffered this:

Our first concern relates to the copyright policy of eNeuro. The journal’s policy states that authors will retain copyright but must grant the Society an exclusive license to publish. We understand that eNeuro will then license the content under a Creative Commons license that allows reuse, but the policy is vague on the specific rights authors, their institutions and third parties have under the terms of this exclusive license, including whether they are allowed to deposit the publisher version of their article in open repositories or personal websites, or permitted to deposit an HTML version on sites that would allow updating, commenting and translations of the article. More importantly, we think that asking authors to grant any kind of exclusive license to a publisher is unnecessary, confusing, and undermines the spirit of open access.

That last line nails it. I would have been happy to include this paragraph in the open letter. But then I noticed a comment from Liz Silva (@lizatucsf), asking where in eNeuro‘s policies it said ‘exclusive license’. She couldn’t find it. Confused, I checked the policies page again and sure enough, she was right – it was gone. Justin Kiggins confirmed he had seen the exclusive language as late as the night before (August 17). I pulled up the Google cache (hat tip to Michael Carroll @nucAmbiguous for that suggestion). The previous copyright policy clearly said ‘exclusive': SFN_eNeuro_cacheHowever, if you visit the current policies page, you’ll see that the copyright policy is nearly identical but the word ‘exclusive’ has been deleted. SfN made this change voluntarily, without us sending the letter. I do not know for sure what caused SfN to do this, but I commend and thank them for their decision. I see this as a win for open access.

This action shows that people within the leadership of SfN are listening, and I hope they will continue to do so, because there are still several things we would like them to change about eNeuro. Most importantly, we are asking for them to make CC BY the default license and price all CC licenses equally. Please read our open letter for more details, and please sign if you agree with our recommendations (a huge thanks to everyone who has already contributed feedback and signed!). You do not have to be a neuroscientist to sign the letter; you just have to believe that open access should be done right.

*Update added Aug. 19: I should note that Fabiana originally suggested similar language to that later suggested by Michael Eisen (that the exclusive license is “not in the spirit of open access”). I pushed for something stronger, so if this language was too strong, the fault lies with me. 

Open letter to the AAAS about their new journal, Science Advances

The following open letter has been delivered to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and published online in The Winnower. Thanks to Jon Tennant (@Protohedgehog) for leading this effort.  Thanks also to everyone who contributed to writing the letter, shared with colleagues, and signed.

——————————————————————————-

Dear  AAAS,

This is an open letter concerning the recent launch of the new open access journal, Science Advances. In addition to the welcome diversification in journal choices for authors looking for open access venues, there are many positive aspects of Science Advances: its broad STEM scope, its interest in cross-disciplinary research, and the offering of fee waivers. While we welcome the commitment of the Association to open access, we are also deeply concerned with the specific approach. Herein, we outline a number of suggestions that are in line with both the current direction that scholarly publishing is taking and the needs expressed by the open access community, which this journal aims to serve.

The first of these issues concerns the licensing terms of the journal articles. The default choice of a non-commercial licence (CC BY-NC) places unnecessary restrictions on reuse and does not meet the standards set out by the Budapest Open Access Initiative. Many large funders, including Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust, do not recognise this as an open license. The adoption of CC BY-NC as the default license means that many researchers will be unable to submit to Science Advances if they are to conform to their funder mandates unless they pay for the upgrade to CC BY. There is little evidence that non-commercial restrictions provide a benefit to the progress of scholarly research, yet they have significant negative impact, limiting the ability to reuse material for educational purposes and advocacy. For example, NC-encumbered materials cannot be used on Wikipedia. The non-commercial clause is known to generate ambiguities and uncertainties (see for example, NC Licenses Considered Harmful) to the detriment of scholarly communication. Additionally, there is little robust evidence to suggest that adopting a CC-BY license will lead to income loss for your Association, and the $1,000 surcharge is difficult to justify or defend. The value of the CC BY license is outlined in detail by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association.

We raise an additional issue with the $1,500 surcharge for articles more than 10 pages in length. In an online-only format, page length is an arbitrary unit that results from the article being read in PDF format. Can the AAAS explain what the additional costs associated with the increased length are that would warrant a 50% increase in APC for an unspecified number of additional digital pages? Other leading open access journals, such as PeerJ, the BMC series, and PLOS ONE, offer publication of articles with unlimited page lengths. The extra costs create constraints that may adversely incentivize authors to exclude important details of their study, preventing replication and hindering transparency, all of which are contrary to the aims of scholarly publication. Therefore it seems counterproductive to impose this additional charge; it discriminates against researchers’ best effort to communicate their findings with as much detail as necessary.

We feel that the proposed APCs and licencing scheme are detrimental to the AAAS and the global academic community. As such, we recommend that Science Advances:

  • Offers CC BY as standard for no additional cost, in line with leading open access publishers, so authors are able to comply with respective funding mandates;

  • Provides a transparent calculation of its APCs based on the publishing practices of the AAAS and explains how additional value created by the journal will measure against the significantly high prices paid by the authors;

  • Removes the surcharges associated with increased page number;

  • Releases all data files under CC0 (with CC BY optional), which has emerged as the community standard for data and is used by leading databases such as Figshare and DataDryad.

We hope that you will consider the points raised above, keeping in mind how best to serve the scientific community, and use Science Advances to add the AAAS to the group of progressive and innovative open access scholarly publishers. We hope AAAS will collaborate with the academic community to facilitate the dissemination of scientific knowledge through a journal committed to fully embracing the principles of Open Access.

We kindly request that you allow your response(s) to be made public along with this letter, and look forward to hearing your response soon.

Signatories (please note that we do not formally represent the institutions listed):

  1. Jonathan P. Tennant, PhD student, Imperial College London (jonathan.tennant10@imperial.ac.uk, @protohedgehog)
  2. Timothée Poisot, University of Canterbury (timothee.poisot@canterbury.ac.nz, @tpoi)
  3. Joseph R. Hancock, Montana State University-Bozeman (joseph.hancock1@msu.montana.edu, @Joe_R_Hancock)
  4. M Fabiana Kubke, University of Auckland, New Zealand (f.kubke@auckland.ac.nz, @kubke)
  5. François Michonneau, University of Florida (fmichon@flmnh.ufl.edu, @FrancoisInvert)
  6. Michael P. Taylor, University of Bristol (dino@miketaylor.org.uk, @MikeTaylor)
  7. Graham Steel, Open Science, Scotland (steelgraham7@gmail.com, @McDawg)
  8. Jérémy Anquetin, Section d’Archéologie et Paléontologie, Switzerland (j.anquetin@gmail.com, @FossilTurtles)
  9. Emily Coyte, University of Bristol (emily.coyte@bristol.ac.uk, @emilycoyte)
  10. Benjamin Schwessinger, UC Davis (bschwessinger@ucdavis.edu, @schwessinger)
  11. Erin C. McKiernan, independent scientist (emck31@gmail.com, @emckiernan13)
  12. Tom Pollard, PhD student, University College London (tom.pollard.11@ucl.ac.uk, @tompollard)
  13. Aimee Eckert, MRes student, Imperial College London (aee13@imperial.ac.uk, @aimee_e27)
  14. Liz Allen, ScienceOpen, San Francisco (liz.allen@scienceopen.com, @LizAllenSO)
  15. Dalmeet Singh Chawla, Imperial College London (dalmeets@gmail.com, @DalmeetS)
  16. Elizabeth Silva, San Francisco (elizabeth.silva@me.com, @lizatucsf)
  17. Nicholas Gardner, Marshall University (nick.gardner@gmail.com, @RomerianReptile)
  18. Nathan Cantley, Medical Student, Queens University Belfast (ncantley01@qub.ac.uk, @NathanWPCantley)
  19. John Dupuis, Librarian, York University, Toronto (jdupuis@yorku.ca, @dupuisj)
  20. Christina Pikas, Doctoral Candidate, University of Maryland (cpikas@gmail.com, @cpikas)
  21. Amy Buckland, Librarian, McGill University, Montreal (amy.buckland@mcgill.ca, @jambina)
  22. Lenny Teytelman, www.zappylab.com, Berkeley, CA (lenny@zappylab.com), @lteytelman)
  23. Peter Murray-Rust, University of Cambridge, UK (peter.murray.rust@googlemail.com), @petermurrayrust)
  24. Zen Faulkes, The University of Texas-Pan American, zfaulkes@utpa.edu, @DoctorZen)
  25. Robert J. Gay, The University of Arizona/Mission Heights Preparatory High School, AZ, USA (paleorob@gmail.com, @paleorob)
  26. Peter T.B. Brett, University of Surrey, UK (peter@peter-b.co.uk, @PeterTBBrett)
  27. Anders Eklund, Linköping University, Sweden (andek034@gmail.com, @wandedob)
  28. Johannes Björk, Institute of Marine Sciences, Barcelona, Spain (bjork.johannes@gmail.com, @AwfulDodger)
  29. William Gunn, Mendeley, London, UK, william.gunn@mendeley.com, @mrgunn)
  30. Nitika Pant Pai, McGill University, Montreal, Canada (nitika.pai@mcgill.ca) @nikkiannike
  31. Philippe Desjardins-Proulx, Ph.D. student (philippe.d.proulx@gmail.com, @phdpqc).
  32. Joshua M. Nicholson, PhD candidate Virginia Tech, VA and founder The Winnower, VA (jnicholson@thewinnower.com, @thewinnower)
  33. Scott Edmunds, GigaScience, BGI Hong Kong (scott@gigasciencejournal.com, @SCEdmunds)
  34. Steven Ray Wilson, University of Oslo (stevenw@kjemi.uio.no, @stevenRayOslo)
  35. Stuart Buck, Vice President of Research Integrity, Laura and John Arnold Foundation (sbuck@arnoldfoundation.org, @stuartbuck1)
  36. B. Arman Aksoy, Ph.D. student, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (arman@cbio.mskcc.org, @armish)
  37. Nazeefa Fatima, University of Huddersfield, UK (nazeefafatima@msn.com, @NazeefaFatima)
  38. Ross Mounce, University of Bath, UK (rcpm20@bath.ac.uk, @rmounce)
  39. Heather Piwowar, Impactstory, (heather@impactstory.org), @researchremix
  40. Avinash Thirumalai, Ph.D student, East Tennessee State University (thirumalai@goldmail.etsu.edu)
  41. Jason Priem, Impactstory (jason@impactstory.org), @jasonpriem
  42. Clayton Aldern, University of Oxford, UK (clayton.aldern@gmail.com, @compatibilism)
  43. Marcus D. Hanwell, Technical Leader, Kitware, Inc., (mhanwell@kitware.com, @mhanwell)
  44. Kristen L. Marhaver, NSF Postdoctoral Fellow, Carmabi Foundation (kristenmarhaver@gmail.com, @CoralSci)
  45. David Michael Roberts, ARC Research Associate, University of Adelaide (david.roberts@adelaide.edu.au)
  46. Brian Hole, Ubiquity Press, UK (brian.hole@ubiquitypress.com, @ubiquitypress)
  47. Alexander Grossmann, University of Applied Sciences Leipzig, Germany and co-founder of ScienceOpen, Berlin/Boston (alexander.grossmann@htwk-leipzig.de, @SciPubLab)
  48. David L.Vaux, Assistant Director, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Australia (vaux@wehi.edu.au)
  49. John Murtagh, Repository Manager, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine @LSHTMlibrary
  50. Alecia Carter, University of Cambridge, UK (ac854@cam.ac.uk, @alecia_carter)
  51. Alex O. Holcombe, University of Sydney (alex.holcombe@sydney.edu.au, @ceptional)
  52. Ignacio Torres Aleman, Cajal Institute, Madrid. Spain. (torres@cajal.csic.es)
  53. Sarah Molloy, Research Support Manager, Queen Mary University of London (s.h.molloy@qmul.ac.uk, @moragm23)
  54. John Lamp, Deakin University, Australia (john.lamp@deakin.edu.au, @johnwlamp)
  55. Matthew Todd, The University of Sydney and Open Source Malaria, matthew.todd@sydney.edu.au)
  56. Anusha Seneviratne, Imperial College London (anushans@hotmail.com, @anushans)
  57. Guido Guidotti, Harvard University (guidotti@fas.harvard.edu)
  58. Joseph McArthur, Assistant Director, Right to Research Coalition(Joe@RighttoResearch.org, @mcarthur_joe)
  59. Carlos H. Grohmann, University of São Paulo, Brazil (guano@usp.br)
  60. Jan de Leeuw, University of California Los Angeles, (deleeuw@stat.ucla.edu)
  61. Jung H. Choi, Associate Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology (jung.choi@biology.gatech.edu)
  62. Ernesto Priego, Centre for Information Science, City University London, UK (Ernesto.Priego.1@city.ac.uk)
  63. Brian Pasley, University of California, Berkeley (bpasley@berkeley.edu)
  64. Stacy Konkiel, Impactstory.org (stacy@impactstory.org), @skonkiel)
  65. Elizabeth HB Hellen, Rutgers University (hellen@dls.rutgers.edu)
  66. Raphael Levy, University of Liverpool (rapha@liverpool.ac.uk)
  67. Paul Coxon, University of Cambridge (prc39@cam.ac.uk)
  68. Nitika Pant Pai, McGill University, Montreal, Canada (nitika.pai@mcgill.ca)
  69. David Carroll, Queen’s University Belfast  (carroll.davide@gmail.com, @davidecarroll)
  70. Jacinto Dávila, Universidad de Los Andes (jacinto.davila@gmail.com, @jacintodavila)
  71. Marco Arieli Herrera-Valdez, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (mahv13@gmail.com, @brujonildo)
  72. Juan Pablo Alperin, Simon Fraser University, Canada (juan@alperin.ca)
  73. Jan P. de Ruiter, Bielefeld University (jan.deruiter@uni-bielefeld.de, @JPdeRuiter)
  74. Xianwen Chen, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (xianwen.chen@nmbu.no, @xianwen_chen)
  75. Jeanette Hatherill, Librarian, University of Ottawa, Canada (jeanette.hatherill@uottawa.ca, @jeanetteanneh)
  76. Katharine Mullen, University of California Los Angeles (katharine.mullen@stat.ucla.edu)
  77. Pedro Bekinschtein, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina (pbekinschtein@fmed.uba.ar; @pedrobek)
  78. Quentin Groom, Botanic Garden Meise, Belgium (quentin.groom@br.fgov.be, @cabbageleek)
  79. Karen Meijer-Kline, Librarian, Simon Fraser University, Canada (kmeijerk@sfu.ca, @kmeijerkline)
  80. Pietro Gatti-Lafranconi, Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, UK (pg356@cam.ac.uk, @p_gl)
  81. Jeffrey Hollister, USEPA, Narragansett, RI (hollister.jeff@epa.gov, @jhollist)
  82. Lachlan Coin, University of Queensland and founder of Academic Karma (l.coin@academickarma.org @AcademicKarma )
  83. MooYoung Choi, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Seoul National University, Korea (mychoi@snu.ac.kr)
  84. Oscar Patterson-Lomba, Harvard School of Public Health (opatters@hsph.harvard.edu)
  85. Rowena Ball, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia (Rowena.Ball@anu.edu.au)
  86. Daniel Swan, Oxford Gene Technology, UK (Daniel.Swan@ogt.com @DrDanielSwan)
  87. Stephen Curry, Imperial College London, UK (s.curry@imperial.ac.uk, @Stephen_Curry)
  88. Abigail Noyce, Boston University (anoyce@bu.edu, @abbynoyce)
  89. Jordan Ward, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA (jordan.ward@ucsf.edu, @Jordan_D_Ward)
  90. Ben Meghreblian, criticalscience.com, London, UK (benmeg@benmeg.com, @benmeg)
  91. Ethan P. White, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA (ethan.white@usu.edu, @ethanwhite)
  92. Sean R. Mulcahy, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA (mulcahy@berkeley.edu, @srmulcahy)
  93. Sibele Fausto, University of São Paulo, Brazil (sifausto@usp.br @sibelefausto)
  94. Lorena A. Barba, George Washington University (labarba@gwu.edu @LorenaABarba)
  95. Ed Trollope, Director, Things We Don’t Know CIC (contact@thingswedontknow.com, @TWeDK)
  96. Stephen Beckett, Ph.D. student, University of Exeter (S.J.Beckett@exeter.ac.uk, @BeckettStephen)
  97. Andrew D. Steen, Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville (asteen1@utk.edu, @drdrewsteen)
  98. Mari Sarv, Estonian Literary Museum (mari@folklore.ee, @kaskekanke)
  99. Noam Ross, Ph.D. Candidate, Ecology, University of California-Davis (nmross@ucdavis.edu, @noamross)
  100. Erika Amir, Geologist, Massachusetts, USA (erika.amir@gmail.com, @geoflier)
  101. Martin Paul Eve, University of Lincoln (meve@lincoln.ac.uk, @martin_eve)
  102. Franco Cecchi, University of Florence (francocecchi337@gmail.com)
  103. Jason B. Colditz, University of Pittsburgh (colditzjb@gmail.com, @colditzjb)
  104. Philip Spear, postdoc, Northwestern University (philspear@northwestern.edu)
  105. Mythili Menon, University of Southern California (mythilim@usc.edu, @mythmenon)
  106. Matthew Clapham, University of California Santa Cruz (mclapham@ucsc.edu,@meclapham)
  107. Karl W. Broman, University of Wisconsin–Madison (kbroman@biostat.wisc.edu, @kwbroman)
  108. Graham Triggs, Symplectic (graham@symplectic.co.uk, @grahamtriggs)
  109. Tom Crick, Cardiff Metropolitan University (tcrick@cardiffmet.ac.uk, @DrTomCrick)
  110. Diano F. Marrone, Wilfrid Laurier University (dmarrone@wlu.ca)
  111. Joseph Kraus, Librarian, University of Denver (joseph.kraus@du.edu, @OAJoe)
  112. Steven Buyske, Rutgers University (buyske@stat.rutgers.edu)
  113. Gavin Simpson, University of Regina (gavin.simpson@uregina.ca)
  114. Colleen Morgan, University of York (colleen.morgan@york.ac.uk @clmorgan)
  115. Kara Woo, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, UC Santa Barbara (woo@nceas.ucsb.edu, @kara_woo)

——————————————————————————-

Butterflies of Xochicalco

Last week, I visited Xochicalco – an amazing archaeological site in the state of Morelos in Mexico. The ruins date from ca. 700-900 A.D., and include both residential and ceremonial structures.

DSCF8228_2
The Great Pyramid at Xochicalco, viewed from the Plaza of the Stele of the Two Glyphs. July 23, 2014.

Xochicalco was constructed in multiple levels atop high hills, providing fantastic views of the surrounding area.

DSCF8212_2

DSCF8210_2Some of the structures, particularly the Temple of the Feathered Serpent, have beautiful carvings.

DSCF8186_2
The Temple of the Feathered Serpent, Xochicalco. July 23, 2104.

But the ruins and spectacular views weren’t the only beautiful things I found there. I previously visited Xochicalco in the dry season and it looked very different. The grass was yellow or absent in some places, and many of the trees were missing foliage. Now, in the wet season, the site is lush and green.

DSCF8136_2

DSCF8244_2
In addition to getting an idea of the habitat, in this picture you can see ruins that have yet to be excavated.

There must have been thousands of butterflies – more than I’ve ever seen in one place! Previously, I’d seen a maximum of ~20 species at a time in outings around Morelos. That day at Xochicalco, I must have seen more than 50.  The only frustrating part was that I couldn’t photograph them all. They were so busy feeding and mating that few of them would sit still long enough for a picture. But I did my best. Here are just a few, grouped by family. A huge thanks to Andy Warren (@AndyBugGuy) for helping me with identifications.

Brushfoots (Nymphalidae):

1. Male ‘Cream-banded’ Dusky Emperor (Asterocampa idyja argus).
2. Female Bordered Patch (Chlosyne lacinia lacinia).
Chlosyne sp?
3. Female Rosita Checkerspot (Chlosyne rosita riobalsensis).
4. Male Simple Checkerspot (Chlosyne hippodrome).
5. Underside view of individual pictured in 4.
DSCF8232_2
6. Female Theona Checkerspot (Chlosyne theona mullinsi).
7. Male Julia Longwing (Dryas iulia).
8. Female Mexican Fritillary (Euptoieta hegesia meridiania).
9. Female Elf (Microtia elva).

Metalmarks (Riodinidae):

10. Female Pale Emesis (Emesis vulpina).
DSCF8258_2
11. Another view of individual pictured in 10.

Skippers (Hesperiidae):

12. Cloudywing (Achalarus sp.).

Swallowtails (Papilionidae):

DSCF8140_3
13. Variable Cattleheart (Parides erithalion trichopus).
DSCF8121_3
14. Variable Cattleheart (Parides erithalion trichopus).
DSCF8263_2
15. Deceased male Montezuma’s Cattleheart (Parides montezuma).
DSCF8264_2
16. Underside of individual pictured in 15.
17. Female Black Swallowtail (Papilio polyxenes asterius).
18. Another view of individual pictured in 17.

Whites and Yellows (Pieridae):

19. Female Dina Yellow (Pyrisitia dina).
20. Male Dina Yellow (Pyrisitia dina).
DSCF8250_2
21. Male (top) and female (bottom) Dina Yellows mating.
Clouded sulphur (Colias philodice)?
22. Male Cloudless Sulphur (Phoebis sennae).

There were so many more species I wasn’t able to photograph! I plan to return as soon as possible to try again.

Creative Commons License
All content on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 138 other followers