Interview: Ricardo Araújo on Journal of Paleontological Techniques

Fossil preparators are the unsung heroes of paleontology. For every paper on a spectacular Archaeopteryx skeleton, or an exquisite new ceratopsian skull, there is at least one talented preparator who freed the fossil from its rocky tomb. Despite the importance of preparators for paleontology, there are surprisingly few formal publications devoted to the trade (beyond the occasional symposium volume). Even rarer are open access publications on fossil preparation. Thus, it is a real pleasure to share this interview with Ricardo Araújo, the executive editor for Journal of Paleontological Techniques.

Tell us a little about Journal of Paleontological Techniques. How did the journal get started?
The Journal of Paleontological Techniques got started due to the difficulties that we felt in the Museu da Lourinha (in Portugal) to get access information relative to preparation. Unfortunately it is extremely hard for a peripheral country to have access to the know-how developed in the great centers of knowledge, namely central Europe and the US. So, we had to find an economical way without detriment of scientific rigor; publishing and editing articles using an open access philosophy seemed the right solution. Furthermore, the lack of a systematic compilation of paleontological techniques is evident in the literature.

What makes Journal of Paleontological Techniques unique?
There are a few things that make our journal unique:

1. There is no other journal focused on the practical side of paleontology. Some typical paleontological journals publish sporadically on paleontological techniques, and there are a handful of printed publications. However, there is an immense quantity of knowledge acquired by generations of preparators that is hard to access if you cannot go to the main conferences or workshops.
2. Also, preparation is practical in its essence. Thus, our papers can include videos and as many photos as necessary to make a technique easily perceptible. Most of the time it is difficult to express these techniques in words.
3. Our publications are edited in volumes. Each article is published by itself as a volume, which decreases the total amount of time for publication. This flexibility allows us, for example, to publish annals of congresses or symposia.
4. Our journal is totally open access and double-blind peer-reviewed. This doesn’t make our journal unique but certainly a “rare specimen.”

What advice would you give to authors who are interested in submitting their manuscripts to JPT?
Write! The preparation community is not used to writing about their findings, some of which are extremely important and can save thousands of euros for paleontological institutions. To spread paleontological techniques is to advance paleontology as a whole. Preparation is a science as well, in its most Popperian essence. To test and refute paleontological techniques is possible, and in fact, is done by all preparators everyday when we use different products, methods and tools, striving for the best way to do something efficiently.

What kind of difficulties, if any, have you encountered in editing JPT? How have these been solved?
When we embraced this project we quickly realized that the challenge was not to create the space to publish practical-paleontological ideas, but almost to change the status quo that preparators face nowadays. Institutions hire preparators to prepare fossils, not to write scientific articles. However, to my eyes, that is a rather limited view about the role of preparation. Preparation is the technical side of paleontology, and like any other science paleontology has its own methods—methods that are publishable. Actually, methods that are required to be published. Moreover, thinking strictly in an economic perspective, by spreading this sort of knowledge, preparator’s employers will quickly realize that they can save money by KNOWING and SHARING their knowledge.

In order to circumvent this problem, we are trying to present at as many events related to preparation as possible, not only to publicize the journal itself but also to spread the ideas behind it. We are part of mailing lists, groups of geosciences journals, and a gazillion things like that. For every preparation-related paleontological event that we know, we try to contact the organizers in order to publish the abstracts or edit a volume with selected papers. We are currently trying to organize an opinion paper that will be submitted in a mainstream paleontological journal, about the underestimation of the importance of preparation/paleontological techniques as a legitimate science. We recently got a wave of papers submitted, and hopefully it will be sustainable.

What has been the best part of editing a journal like JPT?
What I enjoy most about this project is actually the spirit of the journal and the challenge it represents. I believe the actual scenario is difficult, but not impossible to surpass. Ideally we would like to get help and cooperation from various areas of the preparation community, starting from the preparators themselves, up to the heads of departments, and paleontologists.

Image credit: courtesy Ricardo Araújo, originally published at Palaeontologia Electronica.

Interview: P. David Polly on Palaeontologia Electronica

This blog has been hosting a sporadic series interviewing the editors from various open access journals for paleontologists. This time around, I am very pleased to highlight Palaeontologia Electronica (PE for short). PE has a special place in my heart for two reasons. First, it was the earliest open access paleo journal around (that I know of). It began publication in 1998, before "open access" was even a part of the scientific vocabulary! Second, one of my first peer reviewed publications graced the pages of the journal, back in 2004.

PE's executive editor, P. David Polly, was kind enough to answer a few questions. As is only fair, he has asked me to remind readers that any opinions stated here are his alone, and do not necessarily represent official views of the journal.

How did you get involved with PE?
I got involved with PE in 1996, just after its inception and before the first issue was published. As I recall, the idea of an electronic journal of paleontology had been the idea of Norman MacLeod, Tim Patterson, and William Riedel in 1995, who then enthused the group of people who made up the first editorial board. Mark Purnell, my co-executive editor, Peter Roopnarine, the special issue editor, and Jennifer Rumford, our production editor, were all part of that group. So there are four of us who have been with PE for more than 14 years.

Given your long history with PE, have there been any particular surprises for you in how the journal has developed?
The main surprise was how hard it was to get people to publish with PE in the early days. Younger scientists were the ones most attracted by the idea, but they were also the ones to whom "impact factors" were the most important. The journal wasn't indexed by Thomson-Reuters until a few years ago and has only had an official "impact factor" since 2007. Before then we often struggled to get enough submissions to fill an issue, but since then the number of papers that come in is similar (or greater) than many other paleo journals.

Within the growing ecosystem of open access journals, what makes PE unique?
PE is unique in that it is completely sponsored by professional societies so that neither readers nor authors have to pay. Many so-called "open access" journals allow readers to have free access, but charge authors a steep fee. In my opinion, that funding model is even worse than high subscription fees for readers because funds for publication are not equally distributed among fields (paleo as a field has far few funds available for publication costs than does, say, medicine), nor are they equally distributed among researchers, institutions, or countries within a field. Publication is a fundamental part of science, or any academic discipline for that matter-- it's imperative that reserachers be able to publish their work and that others be able to read it.

In my mind, it is an obligation for anyone involved in a professional academic field to donate their time to reviewing papers, serving on editorial boards, paying dues to professional societies, and working for those societies to help facilitate and subsidize scientific publication. Sadly it is becoming increasingly difficult to get people to review papers, serve as editors, or otherwise commit time to these activities, which increasingly leaves academic publishing in the hands of corporate publishers, much to the detriment of fields like paleontology. No service that is offered by corporate publishing houses couldn't be offered by the academic community. The goal of PE is to publish quality science at the least possible cost, without taking a profit, and to reach the greatest possible audience.

What advice would you give to authors interested in submitting their research to the journal?
Format their papers correctly and, regardless of whether you submit to PE or another journal, to be willing to review at least five papers for every one you publish.

Are there any myths about PE that you'd like to see busted?
The main myth about PE that should be busted is that publication is instant. Once papers are accepted to PE, they come out in the next issue, which is faster than most journals, but the process of review and revision happens at the same speed as for any other paper. The thing that slows papers down the most is finding reviewers. I probably have two or three people decline to review for every one who says yes.... it can sometimes take a couple of months to find two suitable reviews for a paper. But once reviews have been found, revisions have been made, and proper formatting done, the papers come out quickly in PE.

Thank you, David!

Tony Martin Interview, Part 2

Yesterday, I ran the first part of this two-part interview with Anthony (Tony) Martin, senior author on a new paper in PLoS ONE. The research details a rare trace fossil (figured below) left behind by a bottom-feeding fish over 50 million years ago. Yesterday's questions focused on the science - in the final installment, we'll learn more about the publishing process. (Full disclosure: I am an editor for PLoS ONE, and was the editor who handled this manuscript.)

Why did you choose PLoS ONE as a venue for the manuscript?
All three of us really liked the fact that by publishing in PLoS ONE we could better share our research with both our colleagues and the general public. All too often I’ve published papers that were read by maybe two or three dozen of my colleagues (if I’m lucky), rather than a broader audience that might also find the work really interesting. I’ve also published in journals with “pay walls” erected to prevent non-subscribers from seeing articles. I know this really frustrates some science bloggers who want to write about the original research instead of just relying on press releases or news articles. So I am becoming more enamored with making sure all science enthusiasts have free access to original research results. PLoS ONE also has published some top-notch paleontological articles in the past few years, so it’s become a high-profile place to publish, while also permitting laypeople to learn from our science.

We also thought this research made for an interesting “fish story” combined with a “detective story,” sort of Sherlock Holmes-meets-fishing-meets-paleontology-meets-spatial analysis. The study also has some visually interesting elements, which through publishing in an electronic journal we could better share through our new (and very cool) application of the Deep Zoom™ software (link here). Now anyone with an Internet connection can check out the same trace fossil analyzed in the study through the pan-and-zoom function of the software.

Was there anything about the PLoS ONE process (good or bad) that surprised you?
Not really. One of my coauthors, Gonzalo [Vazquez-Prokopec] had previously published in one of the PLoS journals and said it was a straightforward process, with timely peer review and good, thorough feedback from the reviewers and editors. I’m pleased to say that our experience was the same, and it encourages me to consider PLoS ONE for future contributions.

Which of the Green River fish would have tasted best?
I would have loved to try Priscacara liops, either pan-fried or steamed with ginger, garlic, scallions, and soy. I’m not so sure that Notogoneus osculus [the focus of the current paper] would have been nearly as tasty, especially considering that we’re even more certain now it was a bottom feeder.

A big thank you to Tony, for taking the time for this interview. Don't forget to check out the paper, if you haven't already!

Reference

Martin, A., Vazquez-Prokopec, G., & Page, M. (2010). First known feeding trace of the Eocene bottom-dwelling fish Notogoneus osculus and its paleontological significance PLoS ONE, 5 (5) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010420

Image credits: Image of the ichnofossil modified from the original paper at PLoS ONE.

Something Fishy in PLoS ONE (and it's pretty neat!)

The open access journal PLoS ONE has published a lot of neat paleontology articles over the last few years (see here for a reasonably comprehensive listing). Charismatic, terrestrial vertebrates (whether dinosaurs, Ice Age mammals, or prehistoric humans) seem to dominate. But what about the poor, neglected fish?

Today, PLoS ONE published a nifty article by Anthony (Tony) Martin [pictured at left] and colleagues, discussing a 50 million year old fish feeding and swimming trace fossil from Wyoming. In the build-up to the release of their paper, Tony (a paleontologist with a specialization in trace fossils, over at Emory University) was kind enough to answer a few questions about the paper. Part 1 (focusing on the science behind the paper) is posted today, and Part 2 (focusing on the open access angle) will arrive tomorrow. [Full disclosure: I was the academic editor at PLoS ONE who handled this submission]

Briefly, what is the importance of the finding described in your new paper?

Several parts of it are important, and they’re all related.

One is that this is the first fish trace fossil described in detail from a formation that’s world-famous for its fish body fossils, the Green River Formation near Kemmerer, Wyoming. The Green River Formation was made by a series of lakes about 50 million years ago, and it preserved many gorgeous fossil fish, which have been collected and studied since the 1850s. However, fish trace fossils, such as trails made by their fins while swimming along the lake bottom, have been mostly neglected. Trace fossils can be extremely valuable for directly reflecting ancient behavior, and because the trace fossil we studied was extraordinarily detailed, it gave us some new insights we might not have gleaned from the fish body fossils.

Secondly, we are very sure about the species of fish made the trace fossil, namely, Notogoneus osculus [figured at right]. This fish had always been interpreted as a bottom feeder, and this is the first trace fossil to confirm this behavior. Our identification of the tracemaker is unusual, because oftentimes it’s tough to tell just what animal made a particular trace fossil. This one, though, gave us some great clues about “who done it.” The trace fossil [see figure below] has beautiful sine-like waves and other marks that show it made by a fish with a downward-pointing mouth, two pelvic pins, an anal fin, and a caudal fin. What really cinched it, though, was that this same species is also found as a body fossil in the same layer as the trace fossil. So our conclusion about the tracemaker is a pretty tight fit in every respect.

Thirdly, we figured out the size of the fish by applying some mathematical and spatial-analysis techniques that had never been used previously on a fish trace fossil. From these methods, we were calculated that the fish was 45 cm, or about 18 inches, which is exactly the average size of Notogoneus osculus. So not only do we know which fish did it, we know how big it was! This makes for a great fish story, because we can say that it was “the one that got away,” we can tell people what it was, and hold out our hands to say, “and it was THIS big (45 cm).” The kicker, of course, is that we’re talking about a fish from 50 million years ago, and in a lake that dried up nearly that long ago.

Lastly, this trace fossil shows a fish behaving normally, swimming and feeding along the lake bottom. Yet it was made in the deepest part of Fossil Lake, which supposedly excluded live fish because of low-oxygen conditions. So this fish trace fossil, along with a few others we mention in the paper, should give future researchers a good reason to reconsider the paleoecology of Fossil Lake. We now know that fish feeding on the bottom of the deepest part of Fossil Lake was a part of its benthic ecology, giving us a new insight about this long-studied deposit.

If you could share one thing about the research that didn't make it into the paper, what would that be? Is there an interesting back story to the project?

Actually, two things should be mentioned, the back story and a philosophical perspective.

The back story is that this may be the only paleontological paper in which the coauthors consist of an ichnologist (me), a disease ecologist (Gonzalo Vazquez-Prokopec), and a geographer (Michael Page). I know it sounds like the start of a bad (and really nerdy) joke, as in, “An ichnologist, a disease ecologist, and a geographer walked into a bar one day…”, but it was a great opportunity for the three of us, all in the same Environmental Studies department at Emory University, to work together in a creative and synergistic way. I did the primary detective work, interpreting the trace fossil in the broadest sense, Gonzalo did some spatial analysis and Fourier transform calculations, and Michael put together the Deep Zoom™ application that allows a viewer to look at a detailed digital image of the trace fossil. This shows how science can work in imaginative ways!

The philosophical point I want to make is summarized by a sentence buried in the paper that refers to places where the fish’s fins lifted off the bottom of the lake and left no marks:

“In other words, these breaks in the continuity of the fin trails also constitute parts of the trace fossil, and have behavioral significance.”

A metaphor I will use to describe this is that the moments of silence in a piece of music are also part of the music. Likewise in this trace fossil, wherever the fish did not touch the bottom, these “empty” places are still part of the trace fossil, and filled with meaning.

Stay tuned for Part 2, to be posted tomorrow!

Reference

Martin, A., Vazquez-Prokopec, G., & Page, M. (2010). First known feeding trace of the Eocene bottom-dwelling fish Notogoneus osculus and its paleontological significance PLoS ONE, 5 (5) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010420

Image credits: Notogoneus image from Wikimedia Commons; picture of Tony by Ruth Schowalter; image of the ichnofossil modified from the original paper at PLoS ONE.

Got a Question? Ask a Biologist!

In case you haven't yet heard the news, the UK-based "Ask a Biologist" web site has just undergone a major redesign. A whole host of bio-type scientists from around the world, including many paleontologists, are available to field your every question (within reason, of course - they can't do your homework for you!). Congratulations to all of the folks behind AAB - great work! As for the rest of you - go ask a biologist!

Royalties for Scholarly Publishing?

I scarcely believed my eyes when I picked up the mail today. . .my first royalty check ever! It wasn't a lot - only $180.84 - but that's $180.84 that I didn't have yesterday. It's also making me reconsider some of my (previously uncharitable) thoughts about for-profit academic publishers.

One of the big criticisms of many commercial publishers is that they get the content written, typeset, and reviewed for free by the scientists, and then turn around and sell the content back to libraries (and individual consumers) at an exorbitant price. Furthermore, many of these publishers continue to show major growths in profits even in the face of an economic downturn. Well, it turns out that they're not as heartless as we thought. In response to pressure from open access publishers (some of whom make their authors pay ridiculous rates), libraries (who are having to cut back on all journal subscriptions), and researchers, the commercial publishers have had a change of heart. They've banded together into a consortium (with the rather euphonious name of BENT, combining portions of the major publishers' names) with the stated purpose of giving back to the academic community.

So how does it work? Well, let's say that an academic journal from a for-profit publisher costs libraries $1,200 per year. By comparison with non-profit journals of equivalent number of pages (and assuming that these non-profits are only breaking even), this means that each subscription nets around $850 profit per year. Assuming a 20 percent profit margin for the company (the investors deserve to be compensated, after all), this leaves around $610 of "spare" cash from each subscribing institution. Of course, we also have to remember that many libraries are only getting the journals as part of a bundle. Assuming that these bundles cut journal subscription costs in third, this still leaves around $200 from each subscribing library per year. If 500 libraries worldwide subscribe to a given paleontology journal in some form, this means a minimum of $100,000 left over!

Here's where the publishers have done something really, really smart. Recognizing that academics put a lot of time and effort into writing and reviewing articles, all of these after-profit proceeds are going back to the researchers. The amount designated per article is based on the length of the article within the years volume. The authors of an article get 75 percent, and the editors and reviewers get 25 percent.

What's that boil down to in real terms? Well, a co-author and I published a 6 page article in a journal that had a total of 1,400 pages last year. Proportionate to the $100,000 left-over money, this means our article gets a $428 cut of the proceeds. $107 goes to the reviewers and editor (split three ways), and the remainder ($321) goes to us authors. I was the junior author, so I got only 1/3 of that amount - $107. But, I also reviewed a 12 page article for the journal ($71 for that!). And better yet, the publishers now compensate us authors for profits from sales of PDFs! Frustratingly, I don't know how many copies of the article were sold, but I do know that I earned $2.84 as a result. Not too shabby - I'll quit complaining about having to pay $35 for a single article, knowing that the authors now reap the benefits.

This move by the publishers is a huge blow against the open access movement, and it means that I'm going to think twice about just giving my hard-earned research away for free (or worse yet, paying a publication fee). Regardless of what happens, I can't wait for another royalty check to arrive this time next year!

Welcome, Seitaad!

I am pleased to announce the publication in PLoS ONE of Seitaad ruessi, a new sauropodomorph dinosaur from the Lower Jurassic Navajo Sandstone of southern Utah. Sauropodomorphs are (mostly) herbivorous dinosaurs that lived from the Triassic all the way until the end of the Cretaceous. Although most people know the giant quadrupedal sauropodomorphs like Brachiosaurus and Apatosaurus ("Brontosaurus"), many of the early sauropodomorphs were bipeds smaller than humans. Seitaad fits in the latter category. For reasons explained below, this is a really cool little animal and a truly rare find.

I have a personal connection to this fossil on two levels. First, the authors of the article, Joe Sertich (at left, pictured with the specimen) and Mark Loewen, are good friends and colleagues of mine. So, I was really excited when they told me that they wanted to submit their manuscript to PLoS ONE (full disclosure: I am an editor there; for obvious reasons, someone else handled their submission). I'll confess that I did little to discourage them. Congratulations, Joe and Mark, on a great paper!

Second, I was one of the lucky people who got to carry the block containing Seitaad from its original resting place, way back in 2005. This thing was heavy! It took a crew of 12 people (8 carrying at a time, and 4 resting for rotation back in) to haul it out. After several years of preparation and study, the new animal is finally named!

I queried one of Seitaad's authors, Mark Loewen, for his thoughts on the find (Joe Sertich is out of the country, so wasn't able to contribute). Here's what Mark had to say.

Briefly, what is the most significant aspect of the new find reported in PLoS ONE?
Seitaad is the first dinosaur discovered from the Navajo Sandstone of Utah and one of the oldest known dinosaurs from Utah. The Navajo Sandstone is a dominant rock unit exposed all over the west. . .and is hiked by thousands of people every year. Fossils in this formation are extremely rare. Prior to its discovery our entire view of the fauna of the Navajo consisted of a partial tritylodont, three chunks of crocodylomorphs, parts of a small theropod, [and] two fragmentary sauropodomorphs. Seitaad is the most complete fossil from the Navajo and through comparisons with taxa across the world gives a much better picture of the largest herbivore in the sand seas of western North America at the same time that large true sauropods had evolved in other parts of the world.

How did you choose the name that you did?
Seitaad was found by Joe Pachak [pictured at left, with the specimen], a local archaeologist and artist from Bluff, Utah while hiking Comb Ridge to document petroglyphs and pictographs. He reported the specimen to the BLM, who alerted us at the Utah Museum of Natural History. We went down to check it out, and immediately started to excavate the specimen. With a crew of 12, including Andy Farke, we hauled out the jackets and began preparing them at the UMNH.

The area around Comb Ridge is covered with numerous archaeological sites and cliff dwellings from the ancestral Puebloan (Anasazi) culture. In fact, Seitaad was located directly below a dwelling called the Eagles Nest. The people who lived in the area at the time would have recognized the white bones of Seitaad eroding out of the cliff if they had seen them. A nearby cliff dwelling has a slab with a dinosaur track incorporated into the window sill. I’m confident that the person who [put] this stone into the window had awareness and appreciation for the fossils preserved in the Four Corners region.

"Seitaad" is derived from Seit’aad, a sand-desert monster from the Navajo (Diné) creation legend that swallowed its victims in sand dunes. The skeleton of Seitaad had been "swallowed" by a fossilized sand dune. The [species name] "ruessi" is derived from Everett Ruess, the famous young artist, poet, historian, and explorer who disappeared in southern Utah in 1934. Ruess is celebrated for his love of the region, its people, and for his free-spirited and adventurous lifestyle. Everett Ruess loved the red rock country of Utah and spent a lot of time exploring the Navajo Formation, so we thought it was fitting to honor him in the taxonomic name.

Why did you choose PLoS ONE as a venue for your research?
We chose to submit to PLoS ONE for several reasons. The open-access format of PLoS ONE and rapid turn-around were major factors. Another factor was the opportunity to reach a broader audience and the rising impact and recognition of PLoS ONE within the paleontology academic community. Another consideration was the lack of limits to figures and unrestricted use of color. The unlimited use of color became a concern during the preparation of our manuscript, when it became clear that black and white photos were not revealing proper contrast between white bones of Seitaad and the pink sandstone of the Navajo Formation.

Is there anything about this find that didn't make it into the scientific paper?
When we first saw photos of the skeleton in the cliff wall we thought it was a pterosaur. The v-shaped ischia looked like dentaries. It wasn’t until UMNH preparators got into the block that we changed our identification to theropod. Then when we got to the hand, we know from the thumb claw that it was a sauropodomorph.

Mark Loewen with the skeleton of Seitaad ruessi

***************

Check out the original article for free at the PLoS ONE website. As always, you can leave comments or rate the article there.

Citation
Sertich, J.J.W., & Loewen, M. (2010). A New Basal Sauropodomorph Dinosaur from the Lower Jurassic Navajo Sandstone of Southern Utah PLoS ONE, 5 (3) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009789

Other Readings
The paper is all over the news and blogosphere; check out Dave Hone and ReBecca Hunt's blogs for more.

Image Credits: Mark Loewen and Utah Museum of Natural History