Catherine Hulshof
LightNews LightNews
banner
hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof
@hulshof.bsky.social
1.7K followers 220 following 150 posts

Chicana ecologist and poet. Biodiversidad y cambio climático. Associate Professor. Founder Big Red Pen Grant Review. biodiversityresearchlab.com

Videos
Environmental science 55%
Agriculture 16%
Posts Replies Media Videos

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · 1d
Just love the graphics and collage effects of this video.
aeon.co Aeon Magazine @aeon.co · 2d
Blending live action, animation, and a soulful, hip-hop-infused beat, director Tajana Tokyo offers a rich snapshot of how relationships are understood in Sierra Leone, and how those views diverge from Western ideas – from divorce and cheating to why you should never ‘marry a man you like too much.’
Never marry a man you love too much, and other views on romance in Sierra Leone | Aeon Videos
A playful collage of audio interviews captures candid and revealing reflections on love, sex and marriage in Sierra Leone
buff.ly

Reposted by Catherine M. Hulshof

aeon.co
Aeon Magazine @aeon.co · 2d
Blending live action, animation, and a soulful, hip-hop-infused beat, director Tajana Tokyo offers a rich snapshot of how relationships are understood in Sierra Leone, and how those views diverge from Western ideas – from divorce and cheating to why you should never ‘marry a man you like too much.’
Never marry a man you love too much, and other views on romance in Sierra Leone | Aeon Videos
A playful collage of audio interviews captures candid and revealing reflections on love, sex and marriage in Sierra Leone
buff.ly

Reposted by Catherine M. Hulshof

olivierjlmanzi.bsky.social
Dr Olivier Jean Leonce Manzi @olivierjlmanzi.bsky.social · 3d
A great way to end the year! Our new paper, led by Daniel B. Metcalfe and published in @NatureComms, shows how biases in tropical research risk undermining environmental policy where it matters most. www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Gaps in tropical science from unrepresentative distribution of sampling and citation across natural terrestrial environments - Nature Communications
Research in the tropics is unevenly distributed across regions and biomes. Here, the authors find that moist broadleaf forests account for 73% of all tropical citations but cover 29% of the land area,...
www.nature.com

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · 3d
I just won a $20 bet from my sister. I haven't been home 1 hour and my dad asks what I'm gonna do with that box of stuff I have in the closet.

The time capsule has to stay. Happy Holidays from the Hulshof's!

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · 5d
At the end of each year we do strategic planning for the next year, a good time to review principles of slow productivity.
1. Work on fewer things
2. Work at a natural pace
3. Quality over quantity

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · 9d
A bit ago there was a paper or thread making the rounds arguing against Bonferroni correction when looking at many correlations. Anyone remember source?

Reposted by Brian J. Enquist, Julia Koricheva, Garry Peterson , and 20 more

nhcooper123.bsky.social
Natalie Cooper @nhcooper123.bsky.social · 10d
Excited to launch the new improved Reproducible Code guide from @britishecologicalsociety.org @methodsinecoevol.bsky.social FREE online here! www.britishecologicalsociety.org//wp-content/... Amazing work by some very talented ECRs. We hope it’s useful!
Book cover for Reproducible Code guide. The cover has a red background with a large yellow-bodied black-headed stag beetle.

Reposted by Anthony Ricciardi, Stephen D. Murphy, Catherine M. Hulshof

biolumijeffence.bsky.social
Jeff Clements 🦪 @biolumijeffence.bsky.social · 12d
In my first Editorial as Associate Editor for @conphysjournal.bsky.social, we help combat this lack of training by providing some "tips and tricks" for writing constructive peer reviews, based on our collective experiences as editors for multiple scientific journals.
Tips and tricks for writing constructive peer reviews
Peer review has been the cornerstone of scientific inquiry for centuries and is considered the backbone of scientific quality and rigour (Spier, 2002). Des
academic.oup.com

Reposted by Catherine M. Hulshof

datadryad.bsky.social
Dryad @datadryad.bsky.social · 24d
Researchers choose Dryad for all kinds of reasons. One of the biggest is our curatorial team.

Expert data curators screen each submission and work with researchers to ensure high-quality, FAIR-compliant data publications.

bit.ly/3KBT38E

#opendata #openscience #openaccess #datasharing #scisky
How Dryad data curators help make data sharing simple for researchers | Dryad news
Data sharing can be challenging. Dryad’s experienced data curators smooth the way with expert, hands-on support for researchers to ensure that all the data we publish is findable, accessible, interope...
bit.ly

Reposted by Catherine M. Hulshof

harimbgutierrez.bsky.social
Harim B. Gutiérrez @harimbgutierrez.bsky.social · 27d
1- El truculento caso de la revista "Science of the Total Environment" que cobra 3600 euros por publicar un paper, y cuyo director figuró como coautor de 200 artículos publicados allí mismo. elpais.com/ciencia/2025...
La caída de una megarrevista científica expone el pelotazo de las editoriales en la ciencia
Una de las cabeceras que más estudios publican en el mundo, expulsada del sistema por irregularidades. Su editorial, Elsevier, supera los 1.300 millones de euros de beneficios al año
elpais.com

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · 27d
'Nobody wants to scale back the industrialization of education it would mean losing money'

Are we still not convinced that education is outdated, not meeting needs of millions and perpetuating inequities? But I've yet to see viable alternatives (except maybe the return of trade schools)

Reposted by Catherine M. Hulshof

martijnslot.bsky.social
Martijn Slot @martijnslot.bsky.social · 27d
This is wild:
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Shadow scholars: inside Kenya’s multibillion-dollar fake-essay industry
Sociologist Patricia Kingori is helping to expose contract cheating by scholars in high-income countries.
www.nature.com

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · 29d
I had the same Q. Many people handle a manuscript (editor, handling editor, reviewers). Who's not doing their job and how do we oust these bad actors? If we don't, publishing in certain outlets becomes meaningless. That's why I publish w/ society journals. You know the people behind the process.

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · 29d
In it's early days @nytwirecutter.bsky.social was the alternative to Consumer Reports but now it just encourages rampant consumerism, wrapped up in mirages of 'quality'. Today's digestif long read:

Why I Broke Up With Wirecutter share.google/Eve6L92jBbKB...
Why I Broke Up With Wirecutter
Graham Downey tells us about how he tried to stop worrying and love the Wirecutter—and how it quietly took over his life.
share.google

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · Nov 27
When the turpials arrive, hurricane season is over, trade winds start, and surf is up in #PuertoRico. The tropics have many seasons too if you know how to look.

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · Nov 24
Where does everyone send their tropical plant samples for species identification using DNA barcoding? Guelph?🙏 Leaves are preferable, but if the leaves are too high for pole pruner, what then? Cambium? Thanks for any leads.

Reposted by Catherine M. Hulshof

journalofecology.bsky.social
Journal of Ecology @journalofecology.bsky.social · Nov 19
🌵 In tropical dry forests, drought avoiders (isohydric) thrive in dry sites with fast growth, while tolerators (anisohydric) dominate wetter areas, boosting biomass non-linearly 👇
buff.ly/8dpEhNv

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · Nov 18
So: if you were to suspend your knee-jerk reaction and, instead, imagine a perfect world, what qualities would a pay-peer-reviewers model have to have for it to work? Now that's the interesting question/thought exercise no importa (y no judgement) whether you are for or against.

Fin.

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · Nov 18
I'm not for or against. But I specialize in exploring ideas outside of how we currently operate. Because how we currently operate clearly ain't working.

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · Nov 18
We are comfortable with NSF honorariums for review panelists but not comfortable with paying for manuscript reviewers. Why? NSF has prestige advantage? Volume/workload is different? Stakes are different?

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · Nov 18
We love data yet are convinced by anecdotal feelings of how this would be a very bad, no good, terrible idea...without any kind of pilot data/info to base those feelings on...what do existing models out there say? I honestly don't know. Just spit-balling and looking for fellow spit-ballers.

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · Nov 18
Few people are willing to suspend disbelief and 'play' from a place of imagination/creativity...skills we are suppose to be good at.

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · Nov 18
Most people hate the idea for all the obvious reasons. Already part of service, where would $ come from, blah, blah, blah.

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · Nov 18
"How Might We" design a pay-peer-reviewers model that prevents perverse incentives? Training/certifications? Vetted reviewers? Rating reviewers? I asked this question in a @esajournals.bsky.social cross-portfolio discussion and here is what I learned:

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · Nov 18
"The conservative nature and risk-averse mentality of modern grant review panels are deeply rooted in the scientific community’s culture that values incremental advances over speculative leaps" Why transformational science can't get funded.
open.substack.com/pub/sciencep...
Why Transformational Science Can't Get Funded:
The Einstein Problem
open.substack.com

Reposted by Joe R. Feagin, John Foot, Dunlap , and 2 more

aljazeera.com
Al Jazeera English @aljazeera.com · Nov 16
A US citizen filmed federal agents smashing his car window, as authorities begin a surge of immigration enforcement operations in North Carolina.

The Honduran-born Charlotte resident filed a police report after the officers let him go.

Reposted by Raúl Pacheco-Vega, Catherine M. Hulshof

iansociologo.bsky.social
Ian Carrillo @iansociologo.bsky.social · Nov 16
This Charlotte grocery is offering free delivery for online orders in case customers don't feel comfortable leaving their homes.

www.instagram.com/reel/DRGIZ9q...
CharlotteFive on Instagram: "🛒 COMPARE FOODS OFFERS FREE DELIVERY: Charlotte grocery store Compare Foods (@comparefoodsclt) is offering free pickup and delivery through Dec. 31 to protect the city’s i...
Compare Foods, a Charlotte-based grocery store, has announced a new initiative to support the city's immigrant community by offering free pickup and delivery services. This move aims to provide conven...
www.instagram.com

hulshof.bsky.social
Catherine Hulshof @hulshof.bsky.social · Nov 12
The @esajournals.bsky.social is hosting a cross-portfolio conversation next week. If you are a subject matter editor like me, come and voice your ideas. It's gonna take brave, bold, new ideas to push back against this multi-headed beast.
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · Nov 11
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.

Reposted by Catherine M. Hulshof

markabelan.bsky.social
mark belan | science illustrator + info designer @markabelan.bsky.social · Nov 11
Full infographic available here: www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-biom...
All the Biomass of Earth, in One Graphic
Our planet supports nearly 8.7 million species. We break down the total composition of the living world in terms of its biomass.
www.visualcapitalist.com

Reposted by Dorothy Bishop, Colin F. Camerer, Ben C. Sheldon , and 36 more

hansonmark.bsky.social
Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · Nov 11
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.