blog

At F1000Research we are constantly pushing the boundary of what defines a research article. Authors can submit descriptions of unexpected, novel, and possibly unexplained observations in the form of Observation Articles. These observations can be a phenomena that has been identified in field work, in the laboratory or through experimental analysis.

We recently published Prof. Andrew Baird’s observation article on “The reproductive season of Acropora in Socotra, Yemen”. Being Prof. Baird’s third coral ecology and reproductive biology article to be published in our journal, we caught up with him to chat about his experience with publishing in an Open Science journal and why F1000Research is the ideal venue for publishing marine biology observation articles.

Hi Andrew, coral larval ecology and reproductive biology being your field of expertise, you recently published your third article with F1000Research on “The reproductive season of scleractinian corals in Socotra, Yemen”, with this publication being your second observation article (published and indexed in less than one week). Could you tell us a bit more about your research and its ecological and economic importance?

I have broad research interests in coral reef ecology. My current focus is coral reproductive biology and larval ecology. For example, my colleagues and I recently demonstrated that projected increases in sea temperature as a result of global warming will increase the rates of coral larval retention on reefs. Increased rates of self-retention will reduce levels of connectivity among reefs in complex systems like the Great Barrier Reef and suggests that the size and spacing of marine protected areas will need to be adjusted to increase resilience.

About your most recent observation articles, why is it important to publish small units of research quickly and efficiently, particularly in a field like yours?

While only small, I would argue our results were not unimportant. Without F1000Research and observation articles, I don’t think the results would have been published. Hopefully, the rapid publication will influence the approach of others interested in coral hybridization.

What has been the reaction from your co-authors and colleagues about publishing such small units of research?

No open reaction so far. But privately, I suspect many of them wonder why I bother!

This is your third publication with F1000Research, why did you choose us as the venue of choice for these articles?

There are few other venues for ecological observations and our Report had been rejected from a number of other journals because our conclusions didn’t conform to the current paradigm. Open peer review seems to lessen the likelihood of reviewers’ airing their prejudice.

Now that you have submitted three articles to our journal what advantages do you find in publishing with an Open Science journal that a) requires all underlying data to be shared b) has an open peer refereeing process?

I think open peer review is an important experiment in scientific publishing. I am not sure it will be successful, but, like a good scientist, I am very happy to be involved in testing it. I also believe that all data should be shared, with some caveats, but certainly in the short term, sufficient data should be provided to allow any analysis to be repeated and in the long term all the raw data should be made public.

Finally, there must be some incredible anecdotes about some of your trips. What has been the most astonishing experience/observation you’ve encountered while out in the field?

I spent three weeks in Aceh in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean Tsunami to explore the effect of tsunami on reefs. In most of villages we visited only the bodies had been cleared away. The destruction on land was complete yet the corals were mostly unaffected. Extraordinary – but not an experience I ever want to repeat.