Research isn’t only about doing your own science… I try to contribute to the academic community in different ways:
Since 2017, I am an editor of Ornis Svecica, a scientific ornithological journal.
I have reviewed manuscripts for Molecular Ecology, Evolutionary Applications, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Ecology & Evolution, Journal of Avian Biology, Ibis, Zoology, Bird Conservation International, Frontiers in Zoology, Ornis Svecica, and Ornis Fennica. Since 2018, I use Publons, to keep a record of my reviewer assignments. Have a look!
I believe that the peer review process is at the core of keeping science sane and pushing for higher quality. Review assignments are therefore something that I take seriously, and I usually spend a considerable effort if I agree to write a review. In light of that, I take pride in having received the below testimonials (at Publons) from journal editors.
Andy Foote, Ecology & Evolution, 2018:
A very helpful and thorough review – I particularly appreciated the constructive nature of the comments to the authors.
Maren Wellenreuther, Evolutionary Applications, 2018:
I have used Martin as a reviewer several times now and he has always provided a carefully written and on-time review. Martins reviews are concise and well-structured. He manages to clearly explain what was done well and what requires more work. He is generous with his time and often invests considerable effort in his reviews. He has a particularly excellent grasp of the methods used to analyse NGS data (e.g. RAD/GBS data) and deeply understands the assumptions that go with it. When writing the reviews, Martin manages to find a very friendly tone and constructively explains – in great detail – how the study can be improved. As such, he has provided fantastic feedback for a number of manuscripts that he has handled. I highly recommend Martin as a reviewer to everyone. I personally rate him among my top reviewers.
Miriam Liedvogel, Frontiers in Zoology, 2017:
This was one of the reviews an editor dreams of. It was clear, highly elaborate and hugely constructive for both me for taking the decision but also and most importantly for the authors to improve their manuscript. This review went beyond a diligent assessment of analyses carried out but suggested a new approach and take on the dataset. I hope to see more reviews in this setting in the future.
Anna Santure, Molecular Ecology, 2016:
This review was incredibly helpful, and picked up a number of very important points that I as editor had failed to recognise. The reviewer went carefully through the whole manuscript assessing the quality of the science and, most helpfully, made very specific suggestions to improve and build on the analysis, challenge some of the assumptions the authors had made in their use of particular software, and challenge the interpretation of some of the data. The paper was eventually published after some further review and was substantially improved, both in terms of the quality of the science and the conclusions from it, and in the overall standard of presentation, as a result of this reviewer’s comments. A small delay in submitting the review was very much worth waiting for!
I have reviewed two grant proposals for the Icelandic Research Fund (2017)
University bodies and department duties
I have been elected representative in the following boards, committees and other bodies within Lund University (Sweden):
- 2014–2015 The University Council (“universitetskollegiet”)
- 2014–2015 The Committee for Third-Cycle Study Programs (“forskarutbildningskommittén”)
Faculty level, Faculty of Science
- 2014–2015 The Presiding Committee (“presidiet”)
- 2014–2015 The Management Council (“ledningsrådet”)
- 2011–2015 The Committee for Third-Cycle Study Programs (“nämnden för utbildning på forskarnivå”)
Department level, Dept of Biology
- 2013–2015 The Department Board (“institutionsstyrelsen”)
- 2010–2015 The Committee for Third-Cycle Study Programs (“forskarutbildningsnämnden”)
- 2012–2014 The Dept of Biology PhD Student Council (“biologiska doktorandrådet”)