Networked Blogs
Search this site
Twitter and News feeds
Navigation
Tuesday
Oct262010

So close, and yet SO CLOSE!

The end of the Ocean Bloggers United for Education challenge is looming! The first project successfully funded by readers of this blog was Mrs L.’s class in Dallas GA.  I spoke with Mrs. L on the phone the other day and she said the kids were practically apoplectic with excitement about coming to Georgia Aquarium, which was the enticement I offered if you guys ponied up - which you did!  They are coming in January, and I promise to post pics on the blog when they do.

If you haven’t yet, there’s still time to help.  PLEASE help me raise a measly 105 bucks more for Mr. D.’s classroom at Creekside Elementary in Milledgeville GA to get an aquarium.  If - nay, WHEN - we reach the goal, Georgia Aquarium will kindly donate additional aquarium equipment (tank, gravel, filter etc.) so that primary education about life in the water will reach even more kids.

So please, roll over to the Donors Choose page for this project and give what you can; every little bit helps - even 5 bucks on PayPal (you didn’t really need that venti caramel macchiato today, anyway).  Then send your receipt to Malia at the blog Shell and Mantle and tell her you’re a Deep Type Flow reader.  If you prefer to support another project, peruse all the Ocean Bloggers choices here or visit  one of the big ocean blog networks such as Deep Sea News or Southern Fried Science and see what they’ve got going on.

Tuesday
Oct192010

Fertilise our way to a cooler planet? Five questions with Pete Strutton

My fellow Aussie and all-round good mate Pete Strutton is a marine biologist of a very different flavour to me.  Whereas I work on bigger critters like whale sharks and (formerly) coral reefs, lobsters and fish parasites, Pete studies big-time plankton and nutrient cycle stuff in the open ocean.  He also edited a book about marine ecology, which you can get on Amazon (even in Kindle format!).  Pete’s at the University of Tasmania these days but formerly of Oregon State, Stony Brook University’s School of Marine Science and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute.  I caught up with Pete recently and asked him some questions about his work.


AD: Hey Pete, can you tell us a bit about your favourite areas of research?

PS:  In general my work concerns the intersection of biological and physical oceanography. In other words, I’m basically a biologist who knows enough physics to be dangerous. What this means in practice is that I try to investigate what causes variability in the productivity of the surface ocean. To do that I need to understand physical processes such as mixing and upwelling, that vary a lot in the ocean and deliver nutrients to the surface where they are consumed by phytoplankton for photosynthesis. This is important because the oceans are responsible for about half the photosynthesis that happens globally. Or as I’ve heard many times recently, every second breath we take is thanks to phytoplankton.

So like I said, most of the work I do is trying to understand how physics impacts biology, but recently I’ve become excited about the reciprocal process: Biological influences on physics. One cool example of this that I don’t work on is the contribution of ocean animals to mixing [of ocean water]. John Dabiri at CalTech was recently awarded a MacArthur Fellowship for his work in this area. What I have done some work on is how phytoplankton influence ocean warming. As we all know, phytoplankton absorb solar radiation to carry out photosynthesis. They actually re-radiate a lot of this energy back into the water as heat and fluorescence. So when the concentration of phytoplankton in the surface ocean increases, this means that there’s greater potential for trapping heat near the surface, rather than it penetrating more deeply into the ocean’s interior.

I’ve looked at two scenarios for the variability of phytoplankton (as measured by chlorophyll concentration) and the impact this has on ocean warming. The first is natural variability, and the case I looked at was the 1997-98 El Nino event in the tropical Pacific [Journal of Climate, 2004 17: 1097-1109]. More recently I’ve become very interested in the impact that geo-engineering scale blooms might have on upper ocean warming, particularly because the goal of these blooms is to ‘cool the planet’, but I think you’re going to ask me about that next.
 
AD: I want to ask you about ocean fertilization.  I gather the basic idea is that plankton production (or algae growth) in the oceans is limited by one or more nutrients that are in short supply, so if you add that nutrient back in, you can encourage huge increases in productivity.  This growth in plankton sucks carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and it becomes “fixed” (turned into animal tissue) and enters the food chain or, ultimately, sinks to the bottom of the ocean where it remains trapped for extremely long periods.  This idea has been termed “carbon sequestration” and proposed as a way to offset or even reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide and thus ameliorate global warming.  Where did this idea come from and who were the key players in its genesis?

PS:  You’ve described the idea very well. The most famous and relevant example is that of iron limitation. For several decades, biological oceanographers wondered why chlorophyll concentrations (phytoplankton populations) were not higher in vast areas of the ocean, in particular the North Pacific, equatorial Pacific and Southern Ocean. When they did cruises to these areas, there seemed to be plenty of nitrogen, phosphorous and silicon available. These elements are all important building blocks for phytoplankton (by the way, carbon is never a limiting nutrient in the ocean). What was stopping phytoplankton from taking up these nutrients?

An important breakthrough came in the 80s by way of technological and analytical developments. John Martin’s group at Moss Landing Marine Labs in California developed careful techniques to accurately measure trace metal in the ocean. Iron, for example, is present in seawater at extremely low concentrations – it would take about 500 olympic swimming pools of seawater to make one 5 gram nail. Most of the sampling equipment we use in oceanography, including the ships themselves, are made of iron, so contamination was difficult to avoid. To cut a long story short, the Moss Landing group developed techniques to measure iron at parts per trillion concentrations. When they made uncontaminated measurements, it became clear that dissolved iron in the ocean was extremely low, particularly in the places I mentioned above. Phytoplankton were using up all the iron (in enzymes for photosynthesis among other things) before they ran out of nitrogen and the other nutrients. That’s why these other nutrients were sitting around unused.

There was a vigorous debate in the community as to whether low light, or consumption by higher trophic levels could be limiting nutrient uptake, but in the end, for the most part, the iron idea won out. John Martin further suggested that long term (tens of thousands of years) variability in dust inputs to the ocean could be regulating Earth’s climate (glacial cycles). He is (in)famous for saying ‘give me half a tanker of iron and I’ll give you an ice age’. He tells the story of this quote in a newsletter in 1990: ‘I first said this more or less facetiously at a Journal Club lecture at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in July 1988. I estimated that, with 300,000 tons of Fe, the Southern Ocean phytoplankton could bloom and remove two billion tons of carbon dioxide. Putting on my best Dr. Strangelove accent, I suggested that with half a ship load of Fe … I could give you an ice age. After which we all had a beer on the lawn outside the Redfield Laboratory’ (see picture [at top] of me having a beer on the lawn outside the Redfield lab 21 years later). I often use this quote in my lectures, although I sometimes get blank stares at the mention of Dr Strangelove.

Pete and colleagues loading iron into dispersal tanks during the SOFeX cruiseIn the 1990s, somewhat cautiously, oceanographers started testing this idea at sea, first in the equatorial Pacific (1993 and 1995), then in the other regions of interest: North Pacific and Southern Ocean.
 
AD:  Can you tell us a bit about the SOFeX experiment and the SOFeX cruise in 2002?

PS:  So yes, in 2002 I was part of a US cruise to the Southern Ocean to perform a relatively large scale iron fertilization experiment. We left out of New Zealand and headed southeast towards the Ross Sea. We fertilized two patches about 15km x 15km. The two study areas were more than 1000km apart – our goal was to test the response of the phytoplankton in two parts of the ocean with different combinations of dissolved nitrogen and silicon.
 
AD:  So now, eight years later, where is this “carbon sequestration” idea headed?  Isn’t it just delaying the inevitable? Is it a viable option, or still controversial?

The “fish”: a device used to distribute the iron at a constant 10m depth. It was covered in rust, depsite being made of plastic!In general, in all of the experiments conducted so far, and there have been more than a dozen of them, blooms have been generated but the amount of ‘fixed’ carbon that ends up raining out of the upper ocean, let alone getting stored in sediments, is considerably less than hypothesized by Martin. There are theories as to why this might be, one of them is that the patches we’ve made to date have been too small, leading to dilutionOne of the plankton blooms produced during the SOFeX cruise, as seen from MODIS satellite. The red patch indicates higher productivity at their boundaries. Some are advocating that we perform even larger experiments, say 100km x 100km. My feeling, and I’m sure I’m not alone, is that iron fertilization is not the silver bullet that will save us from CO2-induced climate change. Nonetheless it is still talked about as potentially part of the solution, and it is also being considered by some in the context of carbon trading. That is, ‘I’ll go fertilize a part of the ocean with iron and suck up 10 tonnes of CO2, then sell that credit to you, Mr Coal-fired Power Plant Owner’.

AD:  SOFeX and some of your other cruises are definitely Science Writ Large.  What’s it like to work on a UNOLS vessel and how do you balance the research interests of individual PI’s against the collective goals of the cruise?  Is it fun or just a grind?

 R/V Revelle, one of the two UNOLS vessels involved in the SOFeX experimenPS:  Good question, particularly with regard to SOFeX. That cruise was very challenging. Even though we had two large ships in the end, there was still strong competition for space on the ship and this translated into competition for time to do science. We wanted to do lots of different tasks, like scan the region as quickly as possible to map the evolution of the patch as seen in surface properties, compared with detailed station measurements that required us to stay in one location for up to 6 hours. These types of sampling were often in competition with each other which makes it particularly challenging for the chief scientist (who constantly has people lobbying for time). To further complicate matters, I was running a drifter that was supposed to mark the center of the [fertilised] patch as it was moved around by the currents. We had real-time radio communication with this drifter, but on a couple of occasions, the GPS dropped out. So although we were getting updates from it, we had no idea where it was. We ended up spending way too much valuable sampling time searching for lost drifters.

On a totally non-scientific note, the other challenge of SOFeX was the food. There was a breakdown in communication re the ordering of supplies prior to sailing and we ran out of a bunch of staples: Bread, eggs, milk, cheese. You’d reckon they could increase our beer allowance (1 per day) to compensate, but no. Oh well, we still managed to have the occasional ‘safety meeting’ in an undisclosed location…

 [AD: If you have questions about geo-engineering or other parts of Pete’s research, post them in the comments and I’ll see if we can get some answer for you]

Tuesday
Oct192010

There it is again!

That awesome feeling when you discover a species you never knew existed!  I just wrote about this in my last post, but it happened again today when I came across this video (cap tip to @support4oceans on Twitter) of Stygiomedusa, a giant jellyfish, seen for the first time in the Gulf of Mexico.  There’s not much to say because Mark Benfield from LSU says it all, but just consider that this thing has a bell the size of a beach umbrella and tentacles as long as a school bus!

Sunday
Oct172010

One of the best things about marine biology

To me, the best bit about working in marine biology is the terrific moment of surprise when you discover a new expression of natural diversity.  Little kids know this - you can see it on their faces every time they turn over a rock in a stream or rock pool.   I think one of the reasons I enjoy it so much is that it almost takes you back to a state of childish wonder, and you get to appreciate something with truly fresh eyes, even if only for a moment.   In my early career in taxonomy, I became completely addicted to the idea of seeing a species that no-one else has seen before (of course, then you have to describe it, and some of the gloss wears off by the time you submit!).  These days, I get the same buzz just from learning about a species I didn’t know existed, and so it was when I recently read a story about an hourglass dolphin (Lagenorhynchus cruciger) that had washed up on a beach in New Zealand for the first time in a century.  Now, I’m not much of an expert on marine mammals, but I had never heard of or seen this animal before, and it was surprising to me because I usually expect the unknowns to come from among the other 95% (invertebrates), and not the more familiar mammals.  It was all the more surprising to me because of the stunning and bold markings of the animal, which are so distinctive, you’d think it would be more well-known (hey, maybe its just me).  Anyway, on the off chance that perhaps you, too, have never met this beautiful creature, I give you the hourglass dolphin, Lagenorhynchus cruciger:

Hourglass dolphins in the Great Southern Ocean. Image: South Georgia Heritage Trust (click for more)

Beautiful, aren’t they?  Have you ever had the feeling I’m talking about?  If so, what was the animal?

Thursday
Oct142010

Beautiful 3D map of the Great Barrier Reef

Led by geologist Robin Beaman, some of the clever folks at James Cook University in Townsville, in the northeastern Australian state of Queensland, have mapped in three dimensions and with unprecedented precision the seafloor off the Queensland coast.  In the process produced they’ve produced some spectacular imagery.

 Gorgeous isn’t it?  The map was made by melding together single beam and multi-beam sonar observations from ship-mounted equipment, with light detection and ranging (LIDAR) data, which are laser measurements taken from satellites.

Multi-beam sonar used to map the ocean floorBut it’s the scale thats really amazing here.  The path of the fly-through in that video is over 1,350 miles, or the distance from Miami to Provincetown (Cape Cod) or from the Straits of Gibraltar to the coast of Greece.  And they covered all the way from the Queensland coast to New Caledonia, encompassing an area of 6 million square kilometers, or about 2.3 million square miles.  Thats about the same area as the lower 48 states, except Texas, mapped - underwater mind you - to 100m resolution!  It was a mammoth job.  In the process they discovered some previously unknown features and, importantly, mapped the entire Great Barrier Reef, the worlds largest coral reef ecosystem.  These sorts of things will make the map an invaluable tool for folks at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, who are charged with the management of this vast area.

You can read more about how they made their map here and a good story about the work in Australian Geographic here.

Tuesday
Oct122010

Cross your fingers for the Yucatan

Long time readers will know that I have a lot of colleagues in the Yucatan part of Mexico, mostly in the northeastern tip in the state of Quintana Roo.  That area is in the firing line for Hurrican Paula (yes, its still hurricane season!).  Cross your fingers in that ever-futile-but-nonetheless-self-soothing symbol of good luck for our colleagues and friends down there, especially the folks on Isla Mujeres, which is pretty exposed.  The map below shows the forecast cone for hurricane force winds in the next 24 hrs.  The cone for tropical storm force winds is MUCH bigger.

Tuesday
Oct122010

Play Bit-o-critter, round 32

Its been a while since we had a BoC and nobody got the last one (it was an orange barrel sponge, Xestospongia sp.).  Here’s the newest challenge then.  Common or scientific name for the species is fine.  First correct answer in the comments wins bragging rights!

 

Tuesday
Oct122010

Help Dr. D.'s kids get an(other) aquarium with DonorsChoose

No, not me.  I’ve already got an aquarium, its rather nice :-)

Dr. D.’s Elementary School class from Milledgeville GA is the next project I’d like to tackle on the DonorsChoose campaign of Ocean Bloggers United for Education.  They need $150 more to set up an aquarium for the school, so that the kids can learn about aquatic life in the classroom.  This time around, if we can get them to their fundraising goal, Georgia Aquarium has very kindly agreed match that by donating another aquarium and/or other aquarium gear (stands, lights, filters, nets, gravel etc.) that can benefit another this or another class at Creekside Elementary. In other words, help them buy one tank, and they’ll get one free!  Creekside is listed as a high poverty school, so this could make a big difference to the school and the kids.

  1. PLEASE go to the DonorsChoose page for this project and donate what you can.
  2. Then email your receipt to Malia at the blog Shell and Mantle and please tell her you’re a DeepTypeFlow reader.
  3. Then sit back and bask in the glow of knowing you helped promote aquatic science to the next generation of budding Zissous!
Tuesday
Oct122010

WOW - you guys rock!

I am thrilled to tell you that Mrs. L.’s Mirror Universe Project on DonorsChoose was fully funded by the time I logged in this morning!  Thanks to those who donated and some matching money from Disney Planet Challenge, the kids at Paulding Middle School will be able to study submarine landscapes and how they are shaped by currents.  I will also be contacting Mrs. L. to arrange for the kids to visit Georgia Aquarium, where I will give them a personalised behind the scenes tour.  Two lucky donors will also get an email about their BTS.

SInce we got a project fully funded in just 3 days (!) and the challenge goes until November, I will look for another suitable project for you to show some love to.  In the meantime, thanks and THANKS!

Monday
Oct112010

Half way there!

Thanks in large part to donations from readers like Natasha and Christy, Mrs. L.’s Mirror Universe class at Paulding County Middle School is already half way to the goal of $258!  They need just $121 more in donations to be able to start their study of submarine topography and ocean currents.  When we reach that goal, I will offer the kids a FREE behind-the-scenes tour at Georgia Aqaurium (thanks to the kind Admin folks there for allowing me to do so!).

So please, follow the details in the post below and make a donation to help kids learn about marine science.  You might even win a behind the scenes tour yourself (details in the other post).  PLUS - I’ll be ever so grateful!

Sunday
Oct102010

Help me help Mrs. L., and I will give away cool stuff

OK folks, the Ocean Bloggers for Education campaign on Donors Choose officially starts today!  The aim of the game here is that those who blog about marine science are getting together to promote Donors Choose projects that will improve ocean literacy for the next generation in underprivileged schools.  Ah, who am I kidding, the real goal is to outshine your ocean blogging competitors with your reader’s fundraising awesomeness!   To that end, I need your help.  Actually, Mrs. L.’s middle school class from Paulding County GA needs your help; this is the project I’d like to focus on (of course, donate to whatever you like!).  I am hoping that DTF’s readers can help raise $238 more dollars so that Mrs. L.’s class can do their Mirror Universe project, studying submarine topography and the importance of currents.  Its not much - just 10 bucks from 24 of you, or 25 bucks from 10 of you - and these kids will get to learn more about the ocean we all love so much.

Mrs. L.’s middle school class in Dallas GA - budding marine scientists all!Here’s the sweetener.  If we (and “we” here includes YOU) can get Mrs. L.’s class project fully funded, I will offer the class a guided behind-the-scenes tour at Georgia Aquarium (equivalent to about $300 for a school class of 25).  But wait, there’s more!  I will also give a BTS tour to the two biggest donors who identify themselves as DTF readers,  plus one guest, when next they are in our fair city of Atlanta.  If they are unlikely to ever make it to the ATL (and there’s no expiry date on my offer!), I will russle up some swag for them instead.  Street value is about $75 per person.  Of course, the catch is that you won’t know how much others have given, so it will be a bit like a Dutch auction.  If you can only afford a couple of bucks, never fear, you will have contributed to Mrs. L.’s class achieving their goal AND getting a bonus field trip to the aquarium (I will post pics on the blog).  Here’s what to do:

  1. Go here and donate as much as you’re comfortable with, or go as big as you think you need to win!
  2. Email your receipt to Malia at the blog Shell and Mantle <— This bit is important!  Make sure you tell her you are a Deep Type Flow reader.
  3. When its all said and done, Malia will tell me who the biggest donor was and I’ll announce it here on the blog (or by email if you prefer to remain anonymous)

If we achieve our goal of getting Mrs. L.’s class funded, by all means please donate to any one of the other worthy marine science projects in the Ocean Bloggers for Education campaign.  Improving ocean literacy among kids is a huge step forward.  The kids are keen, the teachers are keen, the bloggers are keen - here’s your chance to help pull it all together.

 

 

Saturday
Oct092010

Here, have a sunset

Westmeadow Beach NY, 2006

Saturday
Oct092010

Gallo on Titanic

Me and David (right) at the Capital City ClubI had the very good fortune on Thursday to see a talk by David Gallo from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, which he delivered to the Atlanta chapter of the Explorers Club.  David, who is Director of Special  Projects for WHOI and a prominent speaker on TED.com, mixed it up between general ocean wonders and some stuff about Titanic.  He opened his talk with a lot of the stuff in that TED link, but the Titanic stuff was all new because he had just returned from a research cruise where they mapped the entire debris field in unprecedented detail using ROVs and AUVs

 

Not the RMS Titanic, but a good example of the side-scan sonar effect. In this case the sound is coming from the upper right, creating sound shadows to the lower left. Image: NOAASide-scan sonar featured prominently in the survey work, which makes for really cool imaging.  Side-scan is an increasingly popular technique that uses sonar signal deployed at an angle to generate images with a sort of bas-relief effect.  This is in contrast to regular sonar which pings vertically and reconstructs a sort of plan view of the area in question. A lot of the sonar data was pretty raw, but rather than make it hard to interpret, it actually added a layer of excitment; as I understand it we were among the first folks to see any of those data.

They also took down 3D and HD cameras and filmed/photographed every square inch of the visible parts of the bow and stern sections, which lie some three quarters of a mile apart and 2.5 miles down in the icy waters off Newfoundland.  We were treated to snippets of that footage, which shows undeniable deterioration of the wreck, including the mysterious disappearance of the crows nest, distortion of windows, disappearance of walls and a huge profusion of “rusticles” (like icicles made of rust) on the bow section.  Estimates of the complete disintegration of the wreck range from 20 to 200 years, but there seems little doubt that the unsinkable ship will be mostly gone in our life-spans, which was one motivation for the painstaking documentation; they plan to develop a sort of “virtual Titanic” to be made available so that the public can explore her too.

Gallo closed his talk with a section on their next big project, which is a search for the wreckage of Air France flight 447, which crashed in the west Atlantic in June 2009.  Hope remains that the flight data recorders from the crash are still intact and the consortium involved in the operation is apparently very confident that they will find the wreckage and the black boxes and bring closure to the families of the 228 victims of the crash.

The submersible Alvin. Image: NOAAAfter the talk I asked David about recent news that China is making a big move into the world of deep sea exploration.  I asked him whether the deep sea and China would be to the next decade what space and Russia were to the 60’s.  He replied that if you want to view it that way, then the US is already well behind.  He confirmed that the Chinese government has made a huge investment, as has South Korea, and he added that its kind of crazy that the US still relies so heavily on Alvin, a submersible that - while capable - is very old (commissioned in 1964!) and certainly far from the cutting edge in deep sea technologies.

It was a terrific talk and I was very excited to have the chance to finally meet David.  I teach every year in Woods Hole, but our paths have never crossed there.  We made an agreement to share a beer at the Captain Kidd next time I am up there for AQUAVET, and that is something to look forward to.

Wednesday
Oct062010

When errors detract from the message, who is to blame?

ResearchBlogging.org

I am trying to read a paper right now but there are so many mistakes in it that I am really having trouble getting at the science because I am going mad over the errors.  Harikrishnan et al (2010) have written what is otherwise an important review piece about scuticociliatosis, which is a grab-bag name for the disease caused by several types of ciliated protists (single-celled organisms).  Two drugs are misspelled in the abstract (gentamycin as gentamycine and amoxicilin as amoxycililin) and the grammar, sentence structure and punctuation is abysmal throughout.  Try this on for size: “The term scuticociliatosis covers diseases affecting a number of fishes, crustaceans, and molluscs species that caused by histophagous ciliates of the order Scuticociliatida which constitutes an abundant group inhabit eutrophic coastal and saprophytic maricultural waters.”  In fact, the first sentence I found that did NOT contain an obvious grammatical or punctuation error was the 5th sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction, well into the the second page of the paper.  Its got 8 tables where it should have 3 and so it goes on, confusion after error, for 16 pages (I’ll spare you the gory details).

How does this happen?  I daresay in this case English is not the first language of the author who penned the majority of the text (two authors are from India and one from Korea).  That’s fine. I get that, but the editorial process exists to improve the manuscript before errors resulting from English as a second language find their way into print.  The editorial process involves peer review as a check and balance for the quality of the science and editorial review to ensure that the message is not miscommunicated.  In this case the latter part (at least) failed miserably.

Looking more closely at the manuscript, I think there’s another hint in the Article Info section as to how this happened.  The manuscript was received by the editors on Dec 11, 2009, received in modified form on February 26, 2010, accepted the same day and subsequently made available online on March 6, 2010.  That’s 3 months turnaround, or more accurately 60 business days from submission to print.  This is surely a record during a time of year when most editors and reviewers are on vacation for a significant chunk of time due to the end of year holidays.  Hmmm…

Why am I so annoyed about this?  I guess because, as a reader, I am unable to get at what I want (the science) because I am either distracted by or confused by problems in the presentation of the manuscript, an admittedly selfish argument.  Its also galling (and this is the petulant side of me) because I’ve had manuscripts put through the scientific and editorial ringer to the n-th degree for 18 months or more over the slightest detail, while these (no doubt well-meaning) folks are able to get a poor manuscript published within the lifespan of your average Christmas tree.  I know, I know, Waah Waah waah, poor mistreated me.  Truth is, it’s better for science that we all suffer some intermediate degree of scrutiny, rather than deploying intense effort on a few while others get a seeming free pass.  I guess its the inescapable bell-curve effect: if you assume that editorial effort is distributed on a bell curve, then some folks will cop it all, while others get away with close to none.  The biggest reason, though, that this sort of thing can’t be allowed to happen is for what it means about the science.  If we are so cavalier with the language of a manuscript, what sort of scientific review is it getting?  How can we be confident about the conclusions drawn if the way it’s written suggests that it only received a lip-service of a review?

I can’t see how this is anything other than a failure of the entire editorial system.  Someone among the sequence - the receiving section editor, the reviewers, or the managing editor when it came time for the final up-down vote - should have said “Wait a minute, is someone going to say something about this?”.  Evidently that didn’t happen and its a shame, becuase it implies a certain apathy towards the work and, as a result, the journal is worse off for it, the authors aren’t helped by it, and science as a whole suffers.

Harikrishnan, R., Balasundaram, C., & Heo, M. (2010). Scuticociliatosis and its recent prophylactic measures in aquaculture with special reference to South KoreaTaxonomy, diversity and diagnosis of scuticociliatosis: Part I Control strategies of scuticociliatosis: Part II Fish & Shellfish Immunology, 29 (1), 15-31 DOI: 10.1016/j.fsi.2010.02.026

Page 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 22 Next 14 Entries »