Ned Dochtermann
LightNews LightNews
banner
neddochtermann.bsky.social
Ned Dochtermann
@neddochtermann.bsky.social
820 followers 920 following 230 posts
Evolutionary ecology, quantitative genetics of behavior, evolutionary implications of trait covariance. he/him

http://neddochtermann.com
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Ned Dochtermann
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Ned Dochtermann
chuckwendig.bsky.social
A lot of people are quoting this post and that's good because they should, AI sucks and robs us of something special and only mediocre uncreative piss-babies rely on it to make anything at all, fuck AI, p.s. Emma Thompson is now the president, sorry, that's just how it is
noethematt.bsky.social Matthew Noe @noethematt.bsky.social · 15d
"I DON'T NEED YOU TO FUCKING REWRITE WHAT I'VE JUST WRITTEN!"
October 28, 2025 at 12:52 PM
neddochtermann.bsky.social
Hi folks, Any recommendations of dissecting scopes with digital cameras that are sufficient for insect (cricket) morphometrics and relatively inexpensive (<2000)?

Thanks!
October 23, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Reposted by Ned Dochtermann
draverbee.bsky.social
I cannot believe our work is finally out there and in @journal-evo.bsky.social ! This was an enormous group effort!

We provide an updated estimate of the number of buzz pollinated angiosperm species, genera, and families, look at consequences for diversification, number of transitions, and more!
Circular phylogeny showing the branching pattern of 30k plant species with lineages with poricidal and non poricidal taxa indicated. A small subset of poricidal taxa are illustrated around the phylogeny.
October 23, 2025 at 5:34 AM
neddochtermann.bsky.social
As folks get news about promotion and tenure, first, congrats!.

Second, some unsolicited advice: Chairs & Deans don’t like the joke “My goal now is to be dead wood”.

Solid lede for promotion seminars though.
October 22, 2025 at 5:16 PM
Reposted by Ned Dochtermann
darrencullen.bsky.social
Did a new one
Government style ad in watercolour. Image of a burglar stealing a painting from the wall of a home. Tagline: "It's not theft... if you say you're using it to train your AI algorithm". Body text: "Theft is now legal, so we can boost the economy by eliminating jobs. If that doesn't make any sense, ask a chatbot to explain it to you." HM government logo in the corner.
August 7, 2025 at 6:46 PM
Reposted by Ned Dochtermann
jbakcoleman.bsky.social
Just to be super clear, if you’re phoning in your peer review to ai you should quit your job so someone else who actually likes science can have it.
October 16, 2025 at 11:37 PM
neddochtermann.bsky.social
Same: heard that a colleague (in a different department) openly discussed using LLMs for "ideation" and I replied that it was amazing they outright admitted they were bad at their job. Pathetic.

Of course that could also probably have been inferred from the use of the word "ideation".
needhibhalla.bsky.social Needhi Bhalla 💅🏽 @needhibhalla.bsky.social · 27d
when I hear this and remember @tressiemcphd.bsky.social characterized AI as mid, I wonder why this first faculty member (not OP) would tell on themselves so BRUTALLY
drbritwilliams.bsky.social Brit Williams, Ph.D. @drbritwilliams.bsky.social · 27d
I’m in a room where a whole ass faculty member said “Chat GPT 5 would be able to write a better NSF proposal than me” and… well…

My inside thoughts got the best of me BC I said loud as fuck “that’s unfortunate, because there’s not a machine on earth that writes better than me.”
October 16, 2025 at 6:25 PM
neddochtermann.bsky.social
I too would like to move to the beach.
October 11, 2025 at 3:16 PM
neddochtermann.bsky.social
We have an updated version of this preprint, available at:
ecoevorxiv.org/repository/v...
Fingers crossed the formal, final version will be out soon.

We think this highlights a major issue in how we study behavior (& more).

Thank you @sekharma.bsky.social & @itchyshin.bsky.social!

#evolution
October 8, 2025 at 1:06 PM
Reposted by Ned Dochtermann
szymekdr.bsky.social
Our newest paper is out in Methods in Ecol Evol @methodsinecoevol.bsky.social :) amazing team effort - we show that the traditional way of analyzing comparative data lacks finesse. besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/oidcS... w/ @itchyshin.bsky.social Yefeng Yang, Losia Lagisz & Ayumi Mizuno
October 2, 2025 at 3:26 PM
Reposted by Ned Dochtermann
juliasaltz.bsky.social
my lab has moved to @iubiology.bsky.social! We're getting the #newlab set up here and excited to interact with @iu-cisab.bsky.social, @bdsc.bsky.social, and more! I'd love to hear from prospective lab members, especially prospective PhD students, postdocs, and technicians. more info: saltzlab.com
October 3, 2025 at 3:10 PM
neddochtermann.bsky.social
Always great when a software's documentation contradicts things it can easily do. Arrggh.

(felt incompetent, might delete later)
October 1, 2025 at 2:31 PM
neddochtermann.bsky.social
Was reading a paper and recalled how after giving a plenary at my home society, career high point, an NAS fellow said something to the effect of ”I had low expectations but that was actually interesting”. Thanks! 🤣

Those are the kinds of expectations I can hopefully continue to meet!
September 25, 2025 at 12:49 AM
neddochtermann.bsky.social
September 24, 2025 at 6:17 PM
Reposted by Ned Dochtermann
nataliajagielska.bsky.social
Science is dominated by male native-English-speakers with elevated affluence. It's a demographic that makes up less than 3% of the total global population. If someone wants to keep politics out of science, they are comfortable enforcing the status quo that benefits them (a small privileged group).
September 23, 2025 at 4:20 AM
Reposted by Ned Dochtermann
katelaskowski.bsky.social
SquidSim is the coolest package - it let's you build complex hierarchical data structures and then simulate data from the world you create. The best tool for doing proper power analyses and testing how well your models can uncover the 'truth'. I've been recommending it to everyone!
joelpick.bsky.social Joel Pick @joelpick.bsky.social · Sep 15
Interested in simulating the kind of data that you might commonly find in evolutionary and ecological studies?

Then we have the R package for you - squidSim!!

Check our new preprint:
ecoevorxiv.org/repository/v...
squidSim: a flexible R package for structured and reproducible simulations in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
ecoevorxiv.org
September 15, 2025 at 5:08 PM
Reposted by Ned Dochtermann
joelpick.bsky.social
Interested in simulating the kind of data that you might commonly find in evolutionary and ecological studies?

Then we have the R package for you - squidSim!!

Check our new preprint:
ecoevorxiv.org/repository/v...
squidSim: a flexible R package for structured and reproducible simulations in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
ecoevorxiv.org
September 15, 2025 at 2:51 PM
neddochtermann.bsky.social
As a final addition, my departmental colleague (@batsrkul.bsky.social) Prof. Erin Gillam and I finally got our poster presentation recorded and up. Just a couple of months late!

We looked at average explanatory power across studies in animal behavior.

youtu.be/nXZ7yIARokE

#ABS2025
#evolution
September 10, 2025 at 8:39 PM
neddochtermann.bsky.social
New preprint out from the lab, including @rroyaute.bsky.social:
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...

In this we test what we refer to as the "standard model" of behavioral variation.

This was inspired by recent work identifying intra-genotypic variation as a major contributor to "individuality".
1/
Genetic and environmental sources of behavioral individuality: a test of the standard model
Behavioral variation is typically assumed to arise from the combination and interaction of genetic and environmental variation. However, recent work with genetically identical individuals has found th...
www.biorxiv.org
September 8, 2025 at 1:34 AM
neddochtermann.bsky.social
Following up on the #ABS2025 meeting, our lab's presentations are now available on youtube:
www.youtube.com/@Dochtermann...
September 8, 2025 at 1:14 AM
Reposted by Ned Dochtermann
britishecologicalsociety.org
How do overlapping identities shape access and inclusion in ecology? 🌍

Our new report highlights why intersectionality matters and how it helps build a fairer, more inclusive discipline.

Read the BES report: https://f.mtr.cool/xjqiwpgdtp

🌎🧪
f.mtr.cool
September 4, 2025 at 10:02 AM
neddochtermann.bsky.social
Wonderful recognition for a great group of people!
animbehsociety.bsky.social Animal Behavior Society @animbehsociety.bsky.social · Aug 26
One of the best part of our annual meeting is getting to announce all of our society's annual awardees! This year, we inducted 5 new Fellows to our society. These fellows were all nominated by their peers for their distinguished contributions to the field. Congrats to all of them! 🎉🦆🐝🪹🐒🦜🎉
Headshots of the newly elected fellows to the Animal Behavior Society: Patricia Rodriguez Brennan, Aimee Dunlap, Kimberly Rosvall, Noah Synder-Mackler and Tim Wright
August 27, 2025 at 10:06 PM
neddochtermann.bsky.social
What are folks preferred languages for agent/individually based models?
I had a grant criticized for proposing to use R. I know how to use R and could brute force on our cluster. A reviewer didn't think this was "real programming" (minor point but annoying).
1/3
#evobio #evolution 🧪
July 30, 2025 at 6:38 PM
neddochtermann.bsky.social
Sticking with the classics this weekend… but, also, maybe they forgot?
July 26, 2025 at 11:07 PM