Sign in

David Green, PhD

@ecologistgreen.bsky.social
5.7K followers 3.1K following 1.2K posts

Wildlife Ecologist. Passionate about open science, scientific publishing, & peer review. Founder of @StacksJournal.bsky.social, a scientific journal designed ease & ethics. Learn More & Join Us ⬇️ www.stacksjournal.org

PostsRepliesMedia
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
New research published in @stacksjournal.bsky.social! This study will be super helpful for anyone using camera traps for wildlife monitoring.
042
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 16/04/2026
📣 Calling all hydrologists! Do you study wetlands — or know someone who does? @stacksjournal.bsky.social needs peer reviewers for a new submission on depressional wetlands and groundwater pumping. Repost or sign up below 👇
aj5simwj6qe.typeform.com
Join Peer Review
040
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 14/04/2026
Want to improve peer review and collaborate on new hydrology research? We're looking for reviewers @stacksjournal.bsky.social for a new submission examining how groundwater pumping affects depressional wetlands. Sign up to review or repost 👇
aj5simwj6qe.typeform.com
Join Peer Review
010
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 09/04/2026
📣 Calling all immunologists! Do you study lupus or know someone who does? @stacksjournal.bsky.social needs peer reviewers for a new submission on mitochondrial gene expression in lupus & liver, analyzed by sex. Repost or sign up below 👇
aj5simwj6qe.typeform.com
Join Peer Review
020
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 07/04/2026
Want to improve peer review AND collaborate on new immunology research? We're looking for reviewers @stacksjournal.bsky.social for a new submission examining mitochondrial gene expression in lupus-afflicted liver tissue. Interested or know someone who might be? Sign up to review or repost 👇
aj5simwj6qe.typeform.com
Join Peer Review
010
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 17/02/2026
I like this a lot! I also feel like it would bring the number of articles back down to a reasonable level.
000
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 17/02/2026
Yikes! We need more humans doing peer review, especially with all of the AI slop flooding the journals. I just don't see how AI can be a good reviewer yet.
120
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 17/02/2026
#PeerReview is indeed breaking down, but I believe we should build it back up instead of scrapping it entirely. It's how we ensure trust in science. What would make you more likely to review your colleagues' new research? 🧪 #SciPub #AcademicSky
theconversation.com
The peer review system is breaking down. Here’s how we can fix it
Peer review is so integral to the scholarly system that research would grind to a halt without it.
4124
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 10/02/2026
At what point will we as a field finally abandon Impact Factors and focus the credibility on the actual science? 🧪 #SciPub #PeerReview #AcademicSky
peerj.com
A survey of how biology researchers assess credibility when serving on grant and hiring committees
Researchers who serve on grant review and hiring committees have to make decisions about the intrinsic value of research in short periods of time, and research impact metrics such Journal Impact Facto...
2185
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 05/02/2026
Another article published at @stacksjournal.bsky.social using their new model of collaborative peer review! 🧪🌎 #OpenScience #AcademicSky #PeerReview
010
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 15/12/2025
A new #preprint server where articles are written and reviewed by AI. What could possibly go wrong? 🤔 Do you think #AI has a place in #ScientificPublishing and #PeerReview? How would you incorporate it in a thoughtful and ethical way? 🧪
science.org
A new preprint server welcomes papers written and reviewed by AI
With human peer review struggling to keep pace with machine-generated science, aiXiv enlists bots to help
041
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 16/10/2025
😂 Do you think there's a future where journals will be able to make it mandatory for authors to include their data with publication?
000
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 01/10/2025
Thanks! I'm glad you think our concept at @stacksjournal.bsky.social is interesting. Authors and reviewers have really enjoyed the process and found that it helped create better science.
010
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 01/10/2025
I wish it was always the standard, but unfortunately it's not the case. It definitely helps us learn and grow as researchers so I hope we see more and more journals bringing this process in.
000
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 01/10/2025
I think it happens in some journals, but not all. Many of the times I've reviewed articles I don't even learn what the outcome was.
000
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 01/10/2025
That's great that it's common in psychology journals. What's the process like for how they do it?
120
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 01/10/2025
Jane and her work had a special way of bringing you in. She undoubtedly inspired entire generations of conservation biologists, behavioral ecologists, and optimists — Myself included. She will be missed. 🧪🌍
nytimes.com
Jane Goodall, Eminent Primatologist Who Chronicled the Lives of Chimps, Dies at 91
48611
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 25/09/2025
Toucans -- Loud, colorful, and despised by all of the other birds. 🪶🌍 🔉Sound on!
090
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 23/09/2025
What's one thing you'd change about #PeerReview as a reviewer? I'll start: I'd love to see what the other reviewers said about the same paper so I can learn from their perspectives and expertise. 🧪 #SciPub #AcademicSky
2120
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 17/09/2025
So if you believe in #peerreview as a fundamental part of the scientific process that increases trust, take a look at what we're building at @stacksjournal.bsky.social. I think you'll find it to be a breath of fresh air. 6/6
stacksjournal.org
Our Unique Peer Review | Stacks Journal
Learn and grow as a researcher, advance your reputation, and contribute to your field through our unique collaborative peer review.
020
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 17/09/2025
Which is why I think it's time to reimagine what the systems of #peerreview can and should look like. It's actually why I left my faculty job to create a system of peer review that is ethical, transparent, and fair. 5/
110
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 17/09/2025
In a world where science is losing its credibility and powerful people continue to undermine it, I believe we need to come together and show that #peerreview actually means something. That it's how we safeguard the knowledge of our fields for generations to come. 4/
120
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 17/09/2025
But above all, we need to ensure that the published science is trustworthy. And that comes from structured peer review. Where qualified experts come together to not only vet each other's research, but to collaborate and help make it stronger. 3/
scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org
Guest Post:  Preprints Serve the Anti-science Agenda – This Is Why We Need Peer Review - The Scholarly Kitchen
Science is built on a foundation of rigor and credibility. Preprints are adding to the crumbling of that foundation, which is already under attack by anti-science political agendas.
130
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 17/09/2025
Yes, we need to remove barriers to sharing research. Yes, the big publishers have taken advantage of scientists for too long. Yes, it shouldn't cost thousands of dollars to have your work peer-reviewed. 2/
120
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 17/09/2025
It's true: Academic publishing has become a racket. But I think the idea that #peerreview can happen haphazardly in the comments of a preprint server is naive. 1/ 🧪 #AcademicSky #SciPub
wsj.com
Opinion | Academic Publishing Has Become a Racket
Scientists write and review papers without getting paid, and their institutions have to pay for access.
181
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 17/09/2025
Ever watched a scarlet macaw delicately work to get at a piece of fruit? These birds are more than just pretty; they're also important seed dispersers. Sometimes they even swallow fruit whole and plant new trees with their droppings! 🪶🌍🧪
0234
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 15/09/2025
I left academia to build something I couldn't stop thinking about: a better way to #PeerReview research. It isn't an easy path, but I couldn't stand by any longer without trying to fix a broken system. I'm really proud of what we're building at stacksjournal.org. 🧪 #SciPub
0253
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 15/09/2025
Well this is just the coolest! Scientists discovered an ant queen that can lay eggs that hatch into two different species. 🐜🌍✨🤯
science.org
Ant queen lays eggs that hatch into two species
Bizarre discovery of interspecies cloning “almost impossible to believe,” biologists say
070
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 11/09/2025
I love this perspective!
010
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 11/09/2025
Glad to see more journals valuing these negative results!
010
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 11/09/2025
That's too bad. Did they provide helpful feedback for you to improve your work? Have you been able to get them back into peer review?
000
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 11/09/2025
Yes -- I love it when that happens! It's great when reviewers show up to collaborate and help improve the research.
010
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 11/09/2025
Been there myself!
010
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 11/09/2025
I completely agree that publicly funded research should be free to the public and be reproducible! I'm not sure that I believe AI should be playing a major role in peer review. I can see some opportunities for it to support human reviewers, but I don't think we should be relying solely on AI.
100
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 11/09/2025
I agree that the system needs some major improvements. Journal name is no longer (has ever been?) a good proxy for quality. I'm not quite sure that we can get rid of systematic peer review in favor of preprints, though. I believe we should be finding new ways to make peer review work again.
110
Reposted by David Green, PhD
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 09/09/2025
And sometimes it feels personal. 🧪 #SciPub
3211
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 11/09/2025
Interesting read about Impact Factors and vanity metrics in #ScientificPublishing. If we continue to let these measures become the goal, we will lose sight of the meaning, the unseen impact, and continue to limit what research is deemed important. How do you choose where to submit your research? 🧪
scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org
When the Scoreboard Becomes the Game, It’s Time to Recalibrate Research Metrics - The Scholarly Kitchen
Today's guest post discusses research metrics and their relationship to research integrity, inclusivity, and long-term impact.
0111
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 11/09/2025
Null results matter, but too often, they never see the light of day. When journals only publish splashy findings, we lose valuable science. That's why I'm excited about 2-pagers at @StacksJournal.bsky.social. Streamlined publishing for results that deserve to be shared. 🧪 #SciPub #AcademicSky
nature.com
Researchers value null results, but struggle to publish them
Survey finds that fear of reputational harm and a lack of support and publication platforms are among respondents’ key concerns.
0197
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 09/09/2025
And sometimes it feels personal. 🧪 #SciPub
3211
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 08/09/2025
What do you think will be the short- and long-term consequences of these new payment limits in #AcademicPublishing? Do you think publishers will just raise their rates to the new cap? 🧪
2101
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 08/09/2025
Oh -- yes! This too. The whole system needs a reboot.
020
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 08/09/2025
I hear you, but I also wonder why we've settled at such expensive rates for OA. I believe we can have rigorous peer review, OA, and affordable publishing. It will help more scientists make an impact with their findings.
100
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 03/09/2025
It's outrageous that taxpayer dollars were ever used to pay more than $2000 to publish a single article. While it does cost money to have research peer-reviewed and published, the system doesn't make sense when the big publishers are making more money than Google or Amazon. 🧪 #SciPub #AcademicSky
science.org
NIH details options for limiting its payments for open-access publishing fees
Other publishing proposals would scrap reimbursements or pay peer reviewers, unprecedented steps for a major government funder
3161
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 01/09/2025
$3,000 to publish $50 to read $0 to understand #AcademicPublishing is broken 🧪 #SciPub
1549
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 28/08/2025
Thanks! We felt really lucky to be in its presence. So magical!
010
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 28/08/2025
😂
000
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 28/08/2025
✨Resplendent Quetzal✨ So lucky to see one of these magical birds the other day. But did you know that their feathers aren't actually green? They actually look green because of how they bend light. There’s no green pigment at all, and they can even look brown under different lighting. 🪶🧪🌍
4525
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 27/08/2025
Very important question for @whysharksmatter.bsky.social
191
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 27/08/2025
Yeah -- it's very frustrating. It also creates a hierarchy of which science is useful or important.
000
David Green, PhD @ecologistgreen.bsky.social · 27/08/2025
Whaaaa? It's so frustrating when they reject articles because they aren't splashy. Were you able to get it published in a different journal?
100