The problem with science publishing. "Accelerating Scientific Publication by - (Aug/07/2015 )

Hi everyone,

 

I came across this over the social media channels and feel this sums up the problem with contemporary science research enterprise, the need to publish in big journals, the need to accumulate more data and controversially, if Watson and Crick submitted their Nobel Prize winning paper now, it would have been rejected! 

 

Enjoy!

 

Accelerating Scientific Publication in Biology Abstract

Scientific publications enable results and ideas to be transmitted throughout the scientific community. The number and type of journal publications also have become the primary criteria used in evaluating career advancement. Our analysis suggests that publication practices have changed considerably in the life sciences over the past thirty years. Considerably more experimental data is now required for publication, and the average time required for graduate students to publish their first paper has increased and is approaching the desirable duration of Ph.D. training. Since publication is generally a requirement for career progression, schemes to reduce the time of graduate student and postdoctoral training may be difficult to implement without also considering new mechanisms for accelerating communication of their work. The increasing time to publication also delays potential catalytic effects that ensue when many scientists have access to new information. The time has come for the life scientists, funding agencies, and publishers to discuss how to communicate new findings in a way that best serves the interests of the public and scientific community.

But then, it seems like there were less frauds back then than there are now, no?

Thanks for the share, though. We'll have a look

gvbdxz on Mon Aug 10 00:14:06 2015 said:

But then, it seems like there were less frauds back then than there are now, no?

Perhaps, hard to tell.

 

There is more control now so more chance to catch it...

 

Its hard to tell.

 

Fraud is from all times, but perhaps due to the harder climate people are more likely to go that way?

and you have better means to find them (databases, searchable text, software)...even good old Mendel was/is suspicious (doi:10.1080/00033799800200111)

Watson & Crick's paper would have been rejected these days for brevity and not waffling on and on.   The very statement "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing that we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material" would have been a red flag and they'd have been instructed to clarify.

 

I find it funny that the concept of fraud has since been raised in this thread considering Rosalind Franklin's treatment and how W&C obtained her data.