Editor Spotlight: Janice Bossart - EveryONE (original) (raw)

Dr. Janice Bossart discusses her career path in insect ecology and evolution of plant-insect interactions, tips on how to secure reviewers, and how authors, editors and reviewers can contribute to publishing rigorous science.

Janice Bossart is a Full Professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, with a PhD in Entomology and an interdisciplinary concentration in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior. She is an evolutionary ecologist of plant-insect interactions. Recently, her research focuses on how human activities and transformation of landscapes have impacted insect communities, especially butterflies and native bees. She is particularly interested in species and habitats of conservation concern.

It often helps to follow up with a personal email if a reviewer is late returning their review… I explain why they were specifically invited to review the manuscript and the value of their particular expertise to the decision-making process. This approach has proved to be very effective.

Janice Bossart

Your research is centered around insect biodiversity, ecology and evolution. What fascinates you the most about working in this field?

I took my first entomology class as an undergraduate and found it to be super interesting, which led to a stint as a student worker in the research lab of the professor who taught that course. These initial experiences revealed to me a whole new world of organisms that I had previously known nearly nothing about. The more I learned, the more I realized just how incredibly fascinating, ubiquitous, and important insects are. They comprise approximately 66% of all known species, span a huge diversity of lifestyles, are critical components of ecosystems, and are found nearly everywhere on earth across all types of habitats and under all types of environmental conditions. As the world-renowned biologist, E. O. Wilson, famously noted, insects (along with other invertebrates), are the “_little things that run the world_” (Wilson 1987). Initially, I entered graduate school thinking I would pursue a career in integrated insect pest management, helping to achieve a more environmentally friendly approach for managing pest insects. But as my graduate research unfolded, I ultimately just became fascinated studying insect ecology and evolution of plant-insect interactions. Turns out insects are excellent model systems for investigating a wide range of biological processes in ecology and evolution and are superlative harbingers of environmental change. These research pursuits have allowed me to spend much of my professional career outside enjoying nature’s beauty while collecting data in some of the world’s most threatened ecosystems. I continue to be fascinated by discoveries new to me and how much of the natural world that still remains unknown.

You’ve been an Academic Editor for PLOS One for six years now. What advice would you give to new Academic Editors joining the PLOS One Editorial Board?

Finding reviewers has gotten harder, particularly in certain fields. My go-to approach is to come up with a list of relevant keywords then search for potential reviewers in Google Scholar. I’ve learned over time that postdoctoral scholars tend to be the most willing to review manuscripts. Unfortunately, they can be difficult to find in various fields. Generally, I first work to find active research labs doing research that is similar or related to that of the authors and then make a list of their recently graduated doctoral students and their current postdocs. Usually, this approach has worked. I have also found that it often helps to follow up with a personal email if a reviewer is late returning their review. Since my goal is to invite reviewers that have specific and needed expertise, I explain why they were specifically invited to review the manuscript and the value of their particular expertise to the decision-making process. This approach has proved to be very effective.

PLOS One places an emphasis on publishing rigorous, fully reproducible research. Whether as an editor, reviewer or author, what do you see as the key aspects to making research reproducible by another researcher? How can all actors in the process contribute to this?

From my perspective, the main issue is ensuring clarity, transparency, and accessibility of all aspects of the research enterprise. Most often it is the methodology that is lacking. Authors often fail to fully describe how data were collected, why a particular approach to data collection was used and how it was implemented, and why particular analyses were used. Authors are often so close to their work that they have difficulty seeing where additional explanation and clarity is needed or would be helpful. This is where reviewers and editors play an important role because they do see these problems area. Publications can reach a broader scientific audience when they can be understood by more than just those closest to the specific science. I also personally feel that a manuscript should be largely self-contained. By that I mean that readers should not have to consult a bunch of cited references while reading a paper to make general sense of the experimental approach, data collection methods, and data analyses used. To that end, I try to ensure that sufficient explanation and detail are included in the main text and that data analyses are sufficiently explained for general understanding. Often all it takes for clarity is a short, explanatory parenthetical phrase or two. I don’t hesitate to send revised manuscripts back for additional revision if initial modifications don’t clarify important components of the study.

Reference:

Wilson, E. O. (1987). The little things that run the world (the importance and conservation of invertebrates). Conservation biology, 344-346.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by contributors are solely those of individual contributors, and not necessarily those of PLOS.