Skip to content

The ethics of academic peer-review: Some tips and best practices

Academia is an industry of peers. We review each other’s work and (hopefully) we seek to raise the standard for writing, for research design, for methodological advances, and for theoretical development. I peer-review anywhere from 10 to 50 manuscripts per year, at least one book manuscript per year, and I sit on four editorial boards (all of them internationally recognized journals). All of the journals I peer-review for (and I submit my own work to) use the double-blind method, although if you know the field well enough, you can certainly guess who wrote which manuscript.

Doing research

Unfortunately, I’ve been seeing some pretty bad practices in the peer-review process. Not only the extremely lengthy time that journals take to process manuscripts (2 years? seriously?!) but in some cases, editors and reviewers communicate in a rather harsh, nasty and unbecoming-of-a-reputed-scholar manner. I have complained about this on Twitter quite a few times. As I’ve said before, I know for a fact I’m a tough reviewer, but I’m never an unfair one, nor do I write nasty reviews.

Given that I conduct peer reviews on a regular basis (at least one every month, and sometimes once a week), I thought I’d provide some tips and best practices on peer-review.

1. You can be a rigorous reviewer without being a nasty one.

Remember, you are assessing the quality of the manuscript, not the author him/herself. You are supposed to evaluate how sound the methodology is, whether the research has been submitted elsewhere, if the theoretical grounding is there, and if the results are credible (and obviously, correct). Pat Thompson has a great post on this aspect.

2. Don’t accept to peer review manuscripts that fall outside of your area of expertise, nor should you force the author to read your own work if it doesn’t apply.

I can’t tell you how often I’ve received comments from peer reviewers who tell me “the author should have cited Professor X“. This commentary often unblinds the review because I know well (after a thorough literature review) that Professor X does NOT write about Topic Y (the one I wrote about). And it’s unethical do to so, anyways.

3. Do NOT sit on a review for months at a time. Review accurately and in a timely fashion. Or simply decline the review, if you do NOT have the time to do it in a timely manner.

peer review

Academic journals already suffer from a lack of timeliness. Papers that are ACCEPTED in 2012 sometimes are told that they will get published in 2014. I had a journal editor tell me “we have basically covered all of 2013 and 2014” by February 2012. If I am going to submit a manuscript with time-sensitive data, you can tell this is NOT the journal I am going to send my work to, even if it is a solid outlet.

4. If you have questions about how to conduct a peer review in an ethical manner, ASK.

I started peer-reviewing when I was finishing my Masters’ degree, so I have had quite a few years of practice, but whenever I needed advice, I always turned to senior scholars. I am posting here some resources here that I really enjoyed reading.

– The Four Jobs of a Peer Reviewer.

– Ethics of Peer Review – A Guide for Manuscript Reviewers.

– Committee on Publication Ethics – Ethical Guidelines for Peer Review.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – June 25, 2013

Collective Action and the Fate of the Commons in Latin America (Call for Papers)

Dr. Juan Camilo Cardenas (Universidad de los Andes, Colombia) is a friend of mine and fellow IASC member, and a specialist in experimental commons research. He asked me to circulate this call for papers.

Collective Action and the Fate of the Commons in Latin America

CALL FOR PAPERS

Special Issue in Ecological Economics (in honor of Elinor Ostrom)
Invited editors: Juan Camilo Cardenas and Roldan Muradian

Current trends in economic development in most Latin American countries encompass both significant opportunities and threats. The high rates of economic growth that have characterized the last decade have been driven by high prices of natural resources and a commodity boom. The rise of income has offered more opportunities of investment in social and environmental protection. However, a path of economic development that relies heavily on the primary sector also amplifies the pressures on natural ecosystems, especially through an ever expansion of the agricultural, infrastructure and mining frontiers. This entails threats to the integrity of ecosystems, but also to the populations that inhabit them. An important fraction of the region’s poorest depend highly on the extraction of resources for their subsistence and the support of their cultural and economic systems of life. In addition, in Latin America, a considerable part of valuable natural resources are under communal property regimes, require collective action for their management or are embedded in nested (polycentric) governance arrangements. Due to the trends described above, such socio-ecological systems are exposed to increasing external and internal pressures. The way collective governance arrangements respond to such pressures will determine the fate of the commons in the region. This is therefore a vital issue for the future of biodiversity and ecosystem services, not only in Latin America but also in the world as a whole, since the region holds a remarkable share of the global environmental commons.

Ecological Economics (the journal of the International Society for Ecological Economics) has expressed interest in increasing the incidence of studies from Latin America in the journal, since authors from the region have been historically underrepresented. Its editor has asked J.C. Cardenas and R. Muradian to prepare a special issue composed by authors from Latin America or working in the region on a subject of overarching interest. The invited editors have chosen to focus the special issue on the challenges of managing the environmental commons in Latin America. This special issue will be composed by 6-9 articles. Contributions are expected from different disciplines and methodological approaches, and dealing with forests, marine ecosystems, páramos, irrigation schemes or other socio-ecological systems whose management involve collective action in the region. The following are some of the overarching questions to be addressed by this special issue:

• How are common-pool resource management systems dealing with new internal and external threats derived from the current patterns of economic development?
• What is the role of collective action institutions in emerging conflicts over natural resources?
• What can experimental methods and behavioral approaches reveal about the management of the commons in real life situations?
• How are emerging polycentric governance regimes for the management of the global commons (biodiversity; climate change) affecting local collective action regimes?
• Are new economic incentives for the conservation of ecosystems (such as payments for ecosystem services) reinforcing or undermining the institutions for the management of common pool resources?

An e-mail of intent should be sent to Juan Camilo Cardenas (jccarden@uniandes.edu.co) and Roldan Muradian (r.muradian@maw.ru.nl) by August 15th, 2013. We expect to receive drafts of the completed papers by September 30th, 2013. Submitted papers will be sent to reviewers.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – June 24, 2013

Dealing with rejection in academic writing (and academia, in general)

Nobody that I know likes rejection. I’ll have to admit that I was very lucky through high school, undergraduate and graduate school. I worked hard, and that work led to high grades (I completed my PhD with an A+ average GPA). I always felt that I was pretty invincible. Then, I had to rewrite a doctoral dissertation because it needed work. After a lot of work, rethinking and rehashing my argument, I obtained my PhD (not without a tonne of effort, tenacity and will to succeed). I suppose that you could say my academic writing was rejected for not being up to the standard up until I got the doctorate.

"Journal of Universal Rejection" coffee mug

"Journal of Universal Rejection" coffee mug

Photos: credit Tilemahos Efthimiadis

But I also felt lucky throughout graduate school and as I started my career as an early-career-scholar that I had never actually experienced rejection in the academic writing that I sent out to the world. Paper I submitted for publication to a journal, paper that I got accepted. I had almost a zero rejection rate, for a few years.

This year, my record both in grant writing and in journal article publishing got a bit of a clobbering. I got three grant proposals that I had really put my heart and soul into them (and that I thought were spectacularly well written) rejected. Not by much, mind you. And not because the projects weren’t worthy, but because of budgetary constraints and policy priorities of the granting agencies.

I also had a journal article manuscript fully rejected from a journal and felt devastated. After all, this year I had had pretty much a “accepted-as-is”, a “accepted-with-minor-changes” and an “accepted-with-major-changes-but-essentially-it’s-in”. So the rejection really hurt. And the paper is a really nice analysis that I thought was a slam-dunk, which is what really stung more.

In talking with a number of senior scholars at the International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC) Conference in Fujiyoshida-shi, Japan, they reminded me of Elinor Ostrom and what she said about rejection letters – they’re part of academia. In fact, when I first met Lin, I do remember that she did say that – something to the extent of “if you only knew the kind of rejection letters I’ve received for my manuscripts!“. So I felt much better. If even Elinor Ostrom got papers rejected (or grants), and look the kind of academic impact she had in the world, I should learn to deal with rejection and accept it as part-and-parcel of academic life.

Posted in academia, writing.

Tagged with , , , .

2 comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – June 22, 2013

“But mostly, just Grant Me”: Dealing with grant writing as an early career scholar

I have written grant proposals for research projects and successfully obtained funding to conduct research before, without much problem. But in the past couple of years, I’ve experienced my share of rejection. I will admit I wasn’t used to rejection (neither in publishing nor in grant-writing), so being denied funding came as a shock to me. This can be the result of several factors: ever-shrinking budgets for granting agencies, changes in research directions, and an increase in new applicants as well are factors that come to mind. I would like to think it’s not that I’m writing worse grants than I used to!

While I could conduct my research without much additional funding, writing grants is always in my mind. There are a number of things that, while I have outstanding support from my university, I can’t do without external funding. Asking my university to fund a large-scale, multi-site examination of sanitation, wastewater and hygiene conditions in six countries would be a little bit too much. I do need external funds to conduct this kind of project.

Mostly Just Grant Me

Comic (c) Jorge Cham and used for illustrative purposes only. Click the comic to go to the original site.

So when I came across Jorge Cham’s “The Prayer of a Professor” I couldn’t help but laugh, and feel that I relate SO MUCH. I made a colour photocopy and posted it on my office’s door. It’s funny that the professor prays “but mostly, just Grant Me”, as I often feel this way. Not because I feel external pressure from CIDE to write grants and get projects funded (publications are the yardstick I’m measured against, as well as my other scholarly activities – service, teaching, reaching out to the public). But because I really think there are just things we need to search funding for. I consider myself an empirical researcher, so I enjoy going on the field, learning from interviews, participant observation, focus groups. I am delving into field experiments. I’m a comparativist, so I often need to travel to different regions and countries to observe how waste and wastewater are generated and managed. So, the need for funding is always there.

How to deal with eternal grant writing processes (at this point I have 2 grants under review, 4 grants to write and one to revise, all for coordinated projects that are all part-and-parcel of my larger research project) as an early career researcher? I’ve thought about this over the course of this week, and I think the only advice I can offer is: don’t give up.

Posted in academia, research.

Tagged with , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – June 21, 2013

On mentorship in academic circles

I’ve written before about how important it is for me to mentor undergraduate and graduate students, whether they are mine or other professors. My teaching philosophy is student-centric. I’m interested in improving the world through educating the younger (and sometimes older!) generations. I also take mentoring young (or early-career) PhDs and up-and-coming PhD students.

I’ve enormously enjoyed my academic career. Like any profession, it is not without its ups and downs. But to get me through the PhD and my early career, I had fantastic mentors, starting with my former PhD advisor, continuing with my doctoral committee, and of course, my brothers (who are also academics) and my parents (also professors). But not only UBC professors from the environmental field (I did my PhD at UBC) were willing to help me. Other faculty members on campus and in different universities were always fast to answer my relentless questioning via email and at conferences.

In my career as a faculty member, I’ve had the mentorship of former professors of mine, faculty colleagues at The University of British Columbia, and in other universities. And what I have found is that every single one of the professors I’ve ever asked advice from, has given it completely selflessly and with my best interest at heart. Interestingly enough, with new media (Twitter, Facebook, and the like), what I have found is a broad community of scholars from different disciplines who are always eager and willing to help, and who do so also selflessly.

Thus, as I have been blessed with the support, help, advice and guidance of other scholars, I also have taken it upon myself to mentor junior scholars. I also try, with my online presence, to provide useful information for other academics in the disciplines I follow. And that’s also partly the purpose of #ScholarSunday and #MyResearch– to build a community of smart people who do scholarly research.

Given the challenges currently facing higher education and academia (ever-shrinking budgets, technological challenges to the profession, ever-increasing demands on our time, and a dearth of tenure-track positions), I think it is incredibly important to mentor other folks, and to build a community. I’m a scholar of cooperation. I live, breathe and sleep thinking about and doing cooperation.

To everyone who ever mentored me to get where I am, THANK YOU. I raise my glass to you:

Leo DiCaprio great gatsby raising glass gif

Posted in academia, research.

Tagged with , , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – June 20, 2013

My experience at #IASC2013 International Association for the Study of the Commons Conference in Kitafuji, Japan

Complex commons and water governance in Mexico IASC 2013I give a lot of talks and present a lot of my work at conferences, both nationally and internationally. But this 2013, for a number of circumstances (mostly, personal and some logistical), I hadn’t been able to present my papers at the conferences I had already scheduled. So being able to present at the Latin American Studies Association conference in Washington DC in the US and the International Association for the Study of the Commons conference in Kitafuji in Japan gave me two solid weeks of fully-immersed scholarly reflection (you can read on what I talked about at IASC 2013 here). And the picture below reflects exactly how I feel (as found on the When In Academia Tumblr):

Conferences

I do think that was totally wicked. LASA 2013 was fantastic in that I was again surrounded by Latin American Studies scholars, in that I met a lot of academics I wanted to meet in person that I had talked to and followed on Twitter, and that I rekindled my friendships after many years of not seeing some of my scholarly friends.

But it was at IASC 2013 that I felt reborn and my internal academic fire re-ignited. You’ll see, if you have read my academic and research blog, you’ll know that I didn’t manage to solve the two-body problem, and that after 8 years, I experienced a really big loss.

New theoretical and empirical directions in commons research - IASC 2013However, participating in LASA, and more importantly, being at IASC surrounded by academics who care about me on a personal level, and who believe in my research and my potential to contribute to scholarship on the commons really healed me, on a personal level, and pushed me continue working to further our understanding of how neoinstitutional theory can be applied to understand problems of what Charlotte Hess calls “negative commons”, e.g. – wastewater.

New theoretical and empirical directions in commons research - IASC 2013

Mishima (water and river restoration fieldwork for IASC 2013)

Me with Dr. Leticia Merino, President of IASC and Professor at the Institute for Social Research, UNAM

The truth is that academic conferences, despite the expense, and in spite of how much distance sometimes one needs to travel, are incredible vehicles not only to get feedback on your research projects, but also to network and build new scholarly collaborations (as well as friendships). I am eternally grateful to IASC (the organization), Professor Merino and Dr. Meg McKean (co-organizer of IASC 2013), because I feel much more motivated to continue applying what I learned from Elinor Ostrom and Vincent Ostrom to tackle intractable resource problems after participating in IASC 2013.

Closing Ceremony IASC 2013

Dr. Fikret Berkes (University of Manitoba) and Dr. Leticia Merino (UNAM)

I also volunteered to help organize IASC 2015 in Edmonton, Alberta, in my adoptive country of Canada. Hopefully I will get to see many of you there.

Posted in academia, conferences, research.

Tagged with , , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – June 16, 2013

Dr. Dusan Paredes on spatial income inequality in Chile at CIDE Region Centro

We recently hosted Dr. Dusan Paredes (Universidad Catolica del Norte, Chile) at CIDE Region Centro, in the context of the Regional Indicators project that CIDE Region Centro’s Regional Studies Research Group is currently engaged in (an INEGI-CONACYT funded project).

Dr. Dusan Paredes (Universidad Catolica del Norte, Chile) at CIDE Region Centro

It’s hard for me to participate in a seminar on spatial econometrics, and the intersection of economic geography (a la Hayter or McLachlan) and geographical economics (a la Krugman), and not be super excited. After all, my PhD dissertation was precisely on spatial agglomeration, industrial clusters and environmental regulation. While I do mostly water governance and solid waste management (within the framework of comparative environmental policy in North America), I can’t help but be still in love with economic geography and spatial analysis.

Dusan’s paper (Desigualdad espacial de ingresos en Chile y su relación con la concentración de capital humano avanzado, Spatial income inequality in Chile and its relationship with advanced human capital concentration) was presented in Spanish, which facilitated the discussion as we had several folks from INEGI (the National Institute of Geography and Statistics of Mexico, which is located in Aguascalientes) visiting us and attending Dusan’s seminar.

The spatial income inequality in Latin American countries is a recent academic affair. Particularly, the case of Chile highlights around the world because it has one of the highest individual and spatial inequality rates. This article analyzes the spatial income inequality in Chile during 1992 2011 evaluating the role of the spatial labor sorting through multilevel models. The findings show that human capital doesn’t allocate randomly across the space but its spatial concentration at the biggest urban centers impacts significantly the income inequality between counties. These findings motivate the discussion about spatial dimension of the inequality and suggest that policymakers should consider ways to spread human capital throughout the nation as an alternative to reduce spatial inequality.

What I found most interesting of Dusan’s paper is how in many ways his work sheds light on what many of us have read of Richard Florida‘s early work on the creative class (yes, THAT Richard Florida. Say what you will, but Florida has done some very solid academic work). I think Latin America’s cities have been under-researched when it comes to the creative economy and the effect of highly specialized human capital on urban development and growth. Dusan’s research also touches on a topic that is relevant to the discussion: income inequality, which is also affected by (and affects) space and location as variables.

Dr. Dusan Paredes (Universidad Catolica del Norte, Chile) at CIDE Region Centro

Dr. Dusan Paredes (Universidad Catolica del Norte, Chile) at CIDE Region Centro

What I remarked toward the end of Dusan’s seminar was that in fact, much of what he said was economic geography rather than geographical economics. He highlighted the fact that we need to bring the spatial variable back. This is something I’ve argued for almost a decade in my own research. Even political science is realizing this aspect (see Regional Studies’ special issue)! And next year’s International Studies Association conference has the theme of space and location.

Dr. Dusan Paredes (Universidad Catolica del Norte, Chile) at CIDE Region Centro

This has been a stellar year for CIDE Region Centro in regards to internationalization, as we’ve had a fantastic string of invited speakers. Previous talks in our seminar series this Spring 2013 have included Dr. Kathy Baylis (UIUC, USA) and Dr. Kathy Harrison (UBC, Canada). Thanks Dusan for an informative talk!

Posted in academia, research.

Tagged with , , , , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – June 13, 2013

My panels at IASC 2013: New methods for commons research and Water governance in Mexico

I am chairing and organizing two panels at the 14th Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC), held 3-7 June 2013 in Kitafuji, Japan. The first one is New Theoretical and Empirical Approaches to Commons Research and the second one is Complex Commons and Water Governance in Mexico. You can check the conference program for Friday (today) here.

In both panels, I will be presenting some of my research in progress. I am particularly excited about my two papers, whose abstracts I include here.

Neoinstitutionalism, IAD and polycentric governance of the commons: toward a research agenda on water governance in Mexico

One of Elinor Ostrom’s biggest contributions to scholarly research was broadening our understanding of water as a commons, and of the potential of self-organizing groups to create incentives for collective action that would yield sustainable water management. Firmly rooted in neoinstitutionalist theories, Ostrom and her group developed the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework , which has been applied in a wide variety of settings to assess . Vincent Ostrom built the foundational roots where polycentricity and polycentric governance are set. In this paper, I undertake a historical overview of the joint contributions of the Ostroms to commons governance in Mexico, narrowing my analysis to water. My aim with the paper is to trace the development of applications of neoinstitutional theory, IAD and polycentric governance to Mexican water policy in the past 30 years. In the paper, I discuss some of my own work applying these theoretical frameworks to analyzing the governance of wastewater in Mexico, and I propose a research agenda that both furthers the Ostroms’ legacy and extends our understanding of water governance in Mexico.

and

Understanding the dynamics of institutional erosion in wastewater governance processes through a case study of the Lerma-Chapala river basin council in Mexico

2.9 billion people worldwide do not have access to a toilet (George 2010). 894 million people lack access to safe water (World Water Assessment Project 2011). 2.6 billion people live without proper sanitation and 1.1 billion still defecate in the open (Joint Monitoring Programme 2012). Governing wastewater necessitates a holistic, integrated view of integrated water management that encompasses the entire hydrological cycle and not only the components that are most visible to engineers and public health professionals. Governing wastewater in Mexico (and worldwide) still remains a large policy challenge.

This paper focuses the discussion on the dynamics of institutional erosion within Mexican water management and how institutional arrangements for wastewater governance have been slowly fractured and weakened through improper design of rules and norms within the river basin councils (Consejos de Cuenca in Spanish) and the river basin organizations (Organismos de Cuenca in Spanish). The paper uses empirical data from wastewater policies in 5 Mexican states (all of which have territory within the Lerma-Chapala river basin), but I argue that the analysis could very well apply to surface and groundwater management. In this paper I analyze the dynamics of institutional erosion within river basin councils after the legal reforms to the Mexican Water Law of 2004. My research has found that the efficiency and efficacy of river basin councils is very much dependent on design elements, political structures, institutional dynamics, extent of institutional erosion, emergence and robustness of formal and informal social norms and other contextual factors. Using lessons drawn from the Lerma-Chapala river basin as a case study, I challenge the validity of the watershed council as a paradigmatic model of institutional reform for water governance, and propose a preliminary set of ways in which we may want to reformulate this paradigm.

Wish me luck! If you are interested in these papers email me and I will make sure to send you a copy.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , , .

2 comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – June 6, 2013

Day 2 of the International Association for the Study of the Commons 2013 Conference

The second day of IASC 2013 (the 14th Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons, IASC, held 3-7 June 2013 in Kitafuji, Japan) was, much like the first day, filled with an incredibly intense package of presentations (you can check the panel schedule details for Wednesday here). I was really disappointed to miss the Ostrom Awards, but I got food poisoning (and probably a combination of jet-lag) in the afternoon. That said, I did attend a couple of really nice panels.

First, I checked out a panel on urban commons and open spaces, where Elizabeth Brabec (University of Massachussets – Amherst) gave a nice paper on open spaces in Vancouver (the city where I lived for 16 years). The paper is entitled “Common Space in the City of Vancouver: Analyzing Process and Outcomes“. Of course, this was an interesting and important paper to check out, so that’s why I was really keen to see what Elizabeth had done. I really liked her talk but I was surprised to see her NOT talk about greed of real estate developers as a driving force of changes in open spaces in Vancouver.

IASC 2013 Day 2 Sessions

In the early afternoon I checked out a panel on field experiments in water commons research. I’m really keen to get back into experimental research (field experiments are interesting as methodological tools for water governance because they allow you to go into the field and test potential hypotheses with real folks and to study their behaviors in situ). The use of field experiments in studying water is increasing (check these examples – here and here)

IASC 2013 Day 2 Sessions

Overall, I really enjoyed the second day, and I’m sorry I missed the Ostrom Awards (particularly because I am a member of the judging committee!). Here is a photo of Dr. Merino giving one of the Ostrom Awards recognition certificates.

Open Spaces Society campaigner Kate receiving Ostrom award 2013 from Dr Leticia Merino (photo credit: Countryside and Community Research Institute, CCRI UK)

Photo credit: Countryside and Community Research Institute, CCRI UK

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , , , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – June 6, 2013

International Association for the Study of the Commons 2013 in Kitafuji, Japan

I’m at the International Association for the Study of the Commons Biennial Meeting where I will be speaking on Friday in two panels that I organized. One of the panels is on Water Governance in Mexico, and the other is on New Theoretical and Empirical Methods to Study Commons. It is in these panels where I’ll be discussing my work on polycentric water governance in Mexico . This 2013 it is hosted in Kitafuji, Japan (in Fujiyoshida City, near Mount Fuji.

IASC 2013I’m really excited not only because I am really good friends with many of the worldwide’s best scholars who study commons, but also because I get to see them in the flesh, and talk about our research. For example, on this photo (not my best photo, I might add), you can see Dr. Leticia Merino (President of the IASC and a full professor at the Institute for Social Research at UNAM in Mexico), and Dr. Natalie Ban (Assistant Professor, University of Victoria in Mexico). Both of them are very close friends of mine.

As it so happens, Leticia has been a mentor to me for many years, and Natalie did her PhD in the same program as I did. I also have been able to meet up with other friends and colleagues from other countries who do scholarly research on the commons as I do, and people with whom I have corresponded but had not met in advance. I have to praise the organizing committee as the conference has been so far, operating seamlessly.

International Association for the Study of the Commons (Kitafuji, Japan)

What I have found so far is that the range of topics is incredibly vast. I’ve not had a chance to check the anti-commons and negative commons sessions, which I think are rather important. But I had a chance to listen to Dr. Bonnie McCay, someone whose research I respect quite a lot, give a solid keynote on tragedies and comedies of the commons. You can check Bonnie’s talk here (courtesy of the IASC’s YouTube):

Overall, I am quite impressed with the organization of the conference (with VERY reliable wifi!), and an incredibly exciting set of research streams in the conference program. Kudos to the organizers, volunteers and participants in IASC 2013. You can check the Twitter stream searching the hashtag #IASC2013, check out my Flickr photo sets for IASC 2013 here).

IASC 2013 Panels 1, 2 and lunch poster sessions

The only thing I wish that had happened here was that more of my academic colleagues tweeted about the conference!

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , , , .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – June 4, 2013