Secretary’s Report, 2013

Abstract

Previous articleNext article FreeSecretary’s Report, 2013 American Society of NaturalistsCarol BoggsCarol BoggsSecretary Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreMinutes of the American Society of Naturalists (ASN) Executive Council Meeting (Pt. 1), Snowbird, Utah, June 21, 2013Members present included Dolph Schluter (president), Curt Lively (vice president), Catherine Graham (treasurer), Stevan Arnold (past president), Robert Ricklefs (past president), Jonathan Losos (past president), Trevor Price (president-elect), Michael Whitlock (vice president–elect), Kathleen Donohue (past treasurer), Daniel Bolnick (past secretary). Carol Boggs (secretary) attended via Skype. Ex-officio members present included Matt Pennell (graduate student representative), Ellen Ketterson (president-elect in 2014), Judith Bronstein (editor-in-chief, The American Naturalist), and Patricia Morse (managing editor, The American Naturalist). Minutes were recorded by Boggs with help from Bolnick.President’s ReportDolph Schluter submitted a written president’s report. He noted that the ASN and the University of Chicago Press (UCP) have a new memorandum of understanding (MOU), with only minor changes. (The MOU was approved later in the meeting.) The previous agreement allowed the ASN to initiate new programs to increase membership. This has been successful, especially for graduate student members. The next step is to improve membership benefits for young faculty/investigators, in order to retain student members as they move forward.The report also included notation of committee appointments and awards. The ASN President’s Award for an outstanding paper published in The American Naturalist in 2012 was given to Evan P. Economo and Eli Sarnat for their article “Revisiting the ants of Melanesia and the taxon cycle: historical and human-mediated invasions of a tropical archipelago” (180:E1–E16). The 2013 Sewall Wright Award went to Jeanne Altmann for her innovative and hugely influential research spanning ethology, primatology, and ecology. The E. O. Wilson Naturalist Award went to Douglas Emlen. The Jasper Loftus-Hills Young Investigator Award recipients were Robin Hopkins (University of Texas at Austin), Kayla King (University of Liverpool), Carla Staver (Columbia University), and Ian Wang (Center for Conservation and Evolutionary Genetics, Smithsonian Institution). The Ruth Patrick Student Poster Award winner was determined in the course of the meeting. Student Research Awards were made to Malcolm E. Augat (University of Virginia), Carolyn M. Beans (University of Virginia), Brandon S. Cooper (Indiana University), Amanda K. Gibson (Indiana University), Catherine A. Rushworth (Duke University), and Marjorie G. Weber (Cornell University).Catherine Graham asked whether we track the demographics of award recipients and applicants. Matt Pennell asked how we get women to self-nominate. Right now, data do not exist to examine this issue. President Schluter will generate a proposal for tracking relevant data.Treasurer’s ReportCatherine Graham presented the treasurer’s report. We are still showing an annual profit. As of January 2013, our investments have had more active management by our advisor, Betsy Etges, and those investments have been doing well. All of the stocks are in green companies. This includes green energy, which currently shows a loss, but we are holding it in hopes that this sector will take off in the next 10 years.Treasurer Graham, Mike Whitlock, and Steve Arnold raised several questions for discussion. Do we want to invest more of our cash reserve in the actively managed portfolio? Over the long term, what is the purpose of our reserve buffer? How do we determine when to dip into it? The initial conclusion was that ASN should think bigger and bolder, even if some initiatives are riskier. The Finance Committee was instructed to draft possible initiatives, amounting to ∼$20,000, and report back at the next meeting.An idea raised by Catherine Graham is to produce a one-page flyer about ASN, translated to Portuguese, for the 2015 meeting in Brazil, reaching out to future Brazilian members and identifying ourselves as distinct from the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE).Secretary’s ReportThe secretary oversaw the 2013 election for ASN president and vice president. Voting was conducted via BigPulse online from February 11 to March 10, 2013. The election was advertised via social media, as well as through regular notification of members. Of 1,103 eligible voters, 310 voted (28.1%). Ellen Ketterson was elected president and will serve as president-elect in 2014, president in 2015, and past president in 2016, 2017, and 2018. Marlene Zuk was elected vice president and will serve as vice president–elect in 2014, vice president in 2015, and past vice president in 2016. Comments from voters indicated that they were pleased with the ease of the process. One member inquired about solicitation of nominations from members, which we do already but which will be easier if we are in regular e-mail contact with members. Another member made a nomination, which will be passed on to the nominating committee. Otherwise, the percentage of eligible voters casting ballots was significantly smaller than in the previous 4 years. The reason is unclear.The secretary’s other activities included updating the ASN Officer’s Handbook, coordinating planning of the ASN Executive Council meeting at the annual meeting in Snowbird in 2013, and fielding various inquiries. Outgoing secretary Dan Bolnick reported on the 2012 meetings, worked with the president and president-elect to update committee memberships and deadlines, and created a very well-organized electronic archival site for ASN documents and records.The American Naturalist BusinessPublisher’s ReportPatricia Morse presented the UCP publisher’s report. While individual memberships are up, institutional memberships are down. The ASN has 1,425 followers on Twitter (more than our membership number) and 930 on Facebook, and downloads of article PDFs are up ∼15%. Journal publishing has become volatile because of diverse alternatives. Open access, alternative peer review, and journal impact factor innovations create challenges, but there are ways these can be addressed without changing editorial policy.Matt Pennell asked why impact factor is so important. This was originally used by librarians, so it affects institutional subscriptions. Additionally, some European scientists can submit only to journals with impact factors above a given threshold. Nonetheless, some papers—for example, on natural history—are not necessarily well cited and so do not contribute to a high impact factor, but they are frequently downloaded and well liked. We should still pursue desired editorial aims, independent of impact factor.Patricia Morse reported on the journal’s open access policy. E-articles have been fully open access since 2003, but there has been no print open access option on the journal’s website. Any article in the journal is qualified for green open access, either for deposit in a noncommercial archive or posted on an author’s website. Authors can also post their articles through social media and, of course, reuse their articles in their classrooms and other publications. Soon, in addition, there will be a new introductory open access policy for articles on the journal website. Going forward, e-articles will no longer automatically be open access. (Already published e-articles will remain open access.) Open access will be available as an extra charge (on top of the usual page charges) for both print and e-articles. Regular ASN members can set any article, print or e-article, as open access for $700. There will also be a discount for authors from institutions that subscribe to the journal. Student ASN members who are the lead and main author (basically students eligible for the student paper award) can publish as an open access e-article at no extra charge. Authors who are not members and are at nonsubscribing institutions will get open access for $1,400. ASN members will still also be eligible for the waivers and discounts for regular page charges. We will still have e-articles. Many authors who cannot afford color print charges and want to use a lot of color in their PDFs choose the e-article option.Open access represents a sea change of how publication gets paid for. The current “green” open access will meet the coming National Science Foundation (NSF) requirements, but the NSF, as well as other funders, prefer “gold” options, which the new policy makes more available. The NSF is considering more extensive open access requirements down the road.The new redesigned and mobile-friendly ASN website at www.amnat.org is up and running. It is proving to be a great asset in conjunction with the social media and is being well used.Editor’s ReportJudie Bronstein reported that the editorial board transitioned on January 1 to the new editorial team of herself as editor-in-chief, Troy Day and Susan Kalisz as editors, and Mark McPeek as natural history editor.From May 1, 2012, through April 30, 2013, 805 manuscripts were submitted to The American Naturalist (excluding invited manuscripts such as Vice Presidential Symposium articles and ASN addresses). This number represents a 0.4% increase over the previous period. There were 824 final decisions (accept or decline, excluding withdrawals and appeals) and 280 requests for revision (25% of total decisions for all versions). Of the final decisions, 179 were to accept (22%) and 645 were to decline (78%). Of the decisions to decline, 273 (42%) were editorial. The proportion of editorial declines (including “decline without prejudice”) was essentially identical to last year. The acceptance rate is up 2% from last year’s rate.Handling of papers took about the same length of time as last year. Compared to last year, the average time from submission to first decision was 46 days (down from 48 days), while average time to acceptance was 170 days, up from 168 days.From May 1, 2012, through April 30, 2013, there were 58 submissions to the Natural History Miscellany (the same number as the previous time period). Fourteen Natural History notes were accepted (up from five accepted in the previous time period). In the reporting time period, 14 Synthesis proposals were invited to submit as papers, and two were accepted (up from seven invited in the previous reporting period, with one accepted).Competition for The American Naturalist Student Paper Award was intense this year. The recipient was E. Verbruggen, C. El Mouden, J. Jansa, G. Akkermans, H. Bucking, S. A. West, and E. T. Kiers’s “Spatial structure and interspecific cooperation: theory and an empirical test using the mycorrhizal mutualism” (179:E133–E146). A runner-up was named because the field was so strong: J. Clune, R. T. Pennock, C. E. Ofria, and R. E. Lenski’s “Ontogeny tends to recapitulate phylogeny in digital organisms” (180:E54–E63).Few Natural History and Synthesis papers are being published, in part because submissions are often off the mark of what the editors are looking for. The editors may want to refine the description for Synthesis papers to help authors figure out what is desired. Synthesis papers can also be solicited. Several ideas for Synthesis papers were discussed. These include taking a classic paper or a “forgotten paper” (either not necessarily from The American Naturalist) and trace it forward. What has been the impact on the field? Do the ideas in the paper still resonate? Other ideas included support for working groups charged with producing Synthesis papers. Kathleen Donohue resurrected the idea of research synthesis papers focusing on an author’s research program. These could be Wright winners, or other people at critical stages, including early, in their careers.New Memorandum of Understanding with UCPPresident Dolph Schluter called for a vote on acceptance of the MOU. The motion passed unanimously.Lifetime Membership OptionMembers have asked for an option to sign up for a lifetime membership rather than renewing annually. President Schluter reported that UCP was agreeable to this concept. ASN would get a one-time payment from the membership. While members are asking for this option, it is apparently not well used by members of other societies. Nonetheless, it helps in retaining members. A motion was made, seconded, and passed unanimously: We should establish a lifetime membership as an option at $700, assuming the same proportion return from the UCP as for regular memberships. If an agreement with UCP is needed to do this, the agreement should be subject to an electronic vote by the Executive Committee, so it can be implemented without delay.Mechanism Facilitating Direct Communication with ASN MembersCarol Boggs reports that it turns out to be easy to set up an e-mail system to communicate with members. She suggests that the president should send a regular bimonthly, nicely formatted e-mail to members to advertise initiatives and the Asilomar meeting and to ask for self-nominations or other nominations for awards and so forth. The president, editor, and secretary were instructed to collaborate to set this in motion.Other Business ItemsSummary of the Joint ASN/SSE/SSB (Society of Systematic Biologists) Council MeetingNational Science Foundation program officers reported that, in the federal budget cuts, NSF protected the core programs. Our division got some extra money, but the preproposal to funded grant rate was 5% in evolutionary biology and 9% in systematic biology. Societies are encouraged to make joint statements about the state of science funding. The question was raised about the state of congressional interference in the grant review process. The congressional proposal would place broader impacts as a higher criterion than scientific merit. NSF is opposing this, and discussions with the Congress have been tense. An overview was presented of the synthesis centers, which have a 10-year NSF-supported life span. Feedback on what should be supported next was solicited, with the note that the goal of a synthesis center is to increase communication and collaboration within a field. Big data is a hot topic, and scientists and societies should be talking to the NSF about what resources are needed. Open access journals and articles will soon be mandated, at least to the level of green open access. It is possible that a deposit of the manuscript in PubMed will be required for all government-sponsored research, not just for research funded by the National Institutes of Health.The organizers of the 2013 Snowbird meeting reported that there are >1,400 registrants. There has been a lot of local press coverage, including National Public Radio. Things that are new this year include half-day field trips on Monday, lightning talks, and inclusion of the super social in the registration cost. The women’s professional development workshop was a roaring success and will be expanded next year. Meeting participants are asked on check-in if they plan to be at the super social, to help judge the amount of food required. Presidential addresses can be videotaped for a fee if desired (ASN turned this down).The organizers of the 2014 Raleigh meeting report that their budget assumes 1,300 people and that registration will be $425 ($360 for postdocs and $280 for grad students). Lodging will be near the conference center and at new dorms at North Carolina State. The website Evolution2014.org will go live in July 2013. Some field trips are confirmed. There will be an event at the North Carolina Natural Science Museum and the adjacent nature center. Opportunities are available for scientists to give short public talks all day at the museum, which will be streamed to schools.The organizers of the 2015 Brazil meeting will be offering diverse housing options, many with cheaper prices. There will be interactions with the Brazilian Genetics Society; there is no Brazilian evolution society. While visa requirements may change, those requirements will be clearly communicated to attendees. They were asked to look into group rates for airline flights. Registration costs will be comparable to Raleigh. They are looking for sponsors to subsidize travel or sponsored workshops that could include subsidized travel. The suggestion was made that any surplus from Snowbird and Raleigh could go to subsidizing student rates in Brazil.The joint society conference committee was never put together last year. The suggestion is that it should have two student members per society, one faculty member per society, and that the chair rotate among the three societies. There is a need for some institutional memory in planning conferences. One solution would be to hire a permanent conference planner for more than 1 year.2014 Asilomar Stand-Alone Meeting UpdateDan Bolnick summarized his written status update for the Asilomar meeting January 13–15, 2014. Organization of the program is moving forward. Mornings will feature concurrent sessions, with symposia in the afternoons. Poster sessions will be included, with long breaks in the morning and afternoon for viewing posters, discussion, and so forth. Evenings will include a range of discussion formats. Information will be available on the website in July 2013. A super social bonfire is planned for Wednesday evening, weather permitting. Lodging will be on site. The cap is 200 people.Update on DryadMike Whitlock presented an update. We are a charter member of Dryad, meaning that we do not have to pay dues for 2 years. Dues will be $1,000 per year after that. As members, we send a representative to the annual meeting. All the big publishers are likely to join (there is a sliding scale for membership dues), so there is a need for smaller scientific societies such as ASN to continue to be represented. Universities can also join. There is no expectation that an entity has to be a member in order to participate as a client.Dryad is now all sciences, with an emphasis on life sciences. It is evolution heavy because of its history. It does not accept human data or other data with privacy issues. The American Naturalist suggests Dryad as a data repository, with a link in the acceptance letter, but allows other repositories if they meet the basic goals of preservation, curation, and accessibility.Stevan Arnold moved that we remain members of Dryad in perpetuity. Passed unanimously. It was also moved that we pay the 2014 dues in advance to help Dryad with cash flow issues as it gets started as a member organization. Passed.Regional Liaison CommitteeMike Whitlock reported that this committee offers support for regional meetings to further ASN goals. The effort was started a year ago, with a $4,000 budget, but only $2,500 has been committed so far. Funds were committed to subsidize student registration and plenary speaker costs for Southeastern Population Ecology and Evolutionary Genetics, EVO-WIBO, and Midwestern Naturalists. Subsidized students needed to join ASN. This has been very successful. The committee was asked to track students to see if they are maintaining their membership (via the membership file). Regional meetings mostly attended by students should continue to be targeted. Unspent money from last year can be spent this year.Workshop CommitteeStevan Arnold reported that this initiative was undertaken in response to grad student requests, originally for supporting modeling workshops. Advertising through various venues yielded no suggestions for workshops to sponsor. We supported eight students at NESCent and 12 students at the Marine Biological Laboratory at $200 each. Other suggestions are needed, including whether the focus should remain narrowly on data + modeling. Kathleen Donohue made a number of suggestons, including the summer institute for statistical genetics. Jonathan Losos again raised the question of whether we are supporting activities that people are doing anyway? Are we getting people who are staying with the society after first year? He argued that we should push also to create new things that did not previously exist.Update on Student Research GrantsDolph Schluter reported that three faculty plus two graduate students dealt with 77 proposals for student research grants, picking six winners. This represents a lot of work with a low funding rate—almost as low as NSF. Conversations with SSE indicate that the Rosemary Grant Awards have encountered the same problem. The committee needs more than one person reading each proposal, and the whole thing may need structural rethinking. No enthusiasm was expressed for having past recipients serve on the committee. A motion was made to increase the number of awards to 10. The motion passed.Graduate Student CouncilMatt Pennell reported that the Graduate Student Council focused on two issues this past year. The first was legacy, or how to deal with replacement of members. There are currently four members, with eventual expansion to six. Replacement should come from the whole graduate student membership. Suggestions included discussing the issue at the mixer; soliciting nominations, with some thought given to what people should say in a self-nomination: why they want to do it, what their interest area is, what university they attend. Then the selection can be guided by a set of principles based on geographic/research interest/gender or any other diversity set.Second, the Graduate Student Council wants to sponsor a small seminar series nationwide, in which grad students speak at other institutions. This would potentially involve creating a sort of speakers bureau. Questions raised were: How would potential speakers be chosen? How many would they be? Grad students/postdocs? A written proposal is needed to move forward.Minutes of the ASN Business Meeting, Snowbird, Utah, June 23, 2013Steve Arnold (past president) presided over the meeting open to the membership after the presidential address, which was attended by ∼20 people, including the members of the executive council. He introduced the ASN executive council and presented the ASN initiatives in supporting workshops, regional meetings, and research awards. He promoted the ASN stand-alone meeting at Asilomar as a unique opportunity. He invited input from the membership.Minutes of the ASN Executive Council Meeting (Pt. 2) Snowbird, Utah, June 25, 2013President Schluter called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. Also attending were Curt Lively (vice president), Stevan Arnold (past president), Robert Ricklefs (past president), Jonathan Losos (past president), Trevor Price (president-elect), Mike Whitlock (vice president–elect), Kathleen Donohue (past treasurer), and Dan Bolnick (past secretary). Carol Boggs (secretary) attended via Skype. Ex-officio members present included Matt Pennell (grad student representative), Ellen Ketterson (president-elect in 2014), Judy Bronstein (editor-in-chief, The American Naturalist), and Patricia Morse (managing editor, The American Naturalist). New InitiativesThe report from the Finance Committee showed that current new initiatives do not leave much room for further expenditure increases due to more initiatives, unless we either get more return on investments or spend down our reserve in a measured way. The Finance Committee recommended being more aggressive in investing. Stevan Arnold will circulate comparative data from other societies.The Executive Committee brainstormed a variety of ideas for initiatives, particularly targeting postdocs or junior faculty.Dolph Schluter pointed out that we can approve new honorary members. He will put out a call via membership e-mail, then ask for a supporting statement on a first-cut list. The nominees will be approved by the Executive Committee. The meeting was adjourned at 5:57 p.m. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The American Naturalist Volume 182, Number 6December 2013 Published for The American Society of Naturalists Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/674127 Views: 14Total views on this site © 2013 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.