Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo
- - - - -

The problem with science publishing. "Accelerating Scientific Publication by

publication data impact factor pre-print repository

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 methylnick

methylnick

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 266 posts
6
Neutral

Posted 07 August 2015 - 06:56 PM

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
Ronald D Vale
 
 
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.


All comments and communication are my own personal ones, and are not tied to any of my affiliations. 


#2 gvbdxz

gvbdxz

    Banana Split

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 32 posts
5
Neutral

Posted 09 August 2015 - 04:14 PM

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


What's the fun in answering a question when you cannot question its answer? 


#3 gvbdxz

gvbdxz

    Banana Split

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 32 posts
5
Neutral

Posted 09 August 2015 - 04:14 PM

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


What's the fun in answering a question when you cannot question its answer? 


#4 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,457 posts
100
Excellent

Posted 11 August 2015 - 10:11 AM

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?


If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some than not ask and stay stupid.


#5 hobglobin

hobglobin

    Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional...

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,592 posts
116
Excellent

Posted 11 August 2015 - 11:08 AM

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


One must presume that long and short arguments contribute to the same end. - Epicurus
...except casandra's that belong to the funniest, most interesting and imaginative (or over-imaginative?) ones, I suppose.


#6 Astilius

Astilius

    Enthusiast

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 62 posts
5
Neutral

Posted 14 August 2015 - 04:59 AM

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.


To the last, I grapple with thee; from Hell's heart, I stab at thee; for hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.





Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.