Publishing a scientific paper….

A new model by Kravitz and Baker is here. Bradley Voytek’s blog entry on it is here (by the way, he’s an accomplished young neuroscientist and you can read his recent papers here).

So back to the new idea: basically the notion is that all submissions get published, but they go through pre-publication and post-publication review, ranking and discussion (think Faculty of 1000). Journal editors like me are obsolete, only managing editors survive–along with elected editorial boards. I guess all made possible by the wonders of technology.

My main concern is this (for those readers who are in the life sciences). Think about all those posters at the largest meeting you attend. Actually think about all those non-peer reviewed posters at the Society for Neuroscience meeting: thousands and thousands of them. Now, think about (even w. a ranking system) having to find the jewels among them.

But wait you say, you can use the ranking and computational tools to just view the very best….and I say, why then would you ever publish the very worst?

And what would it mean for promotion and tenure when any person could have 1000 first authorship papers—in Neuron?

So I remain skeptical.

One thought on “Publishing a scientific paper….

  1. We just posted a comment that responds to the critique mentioned here as well as several other issues that have been raised. The reply is on the article website (Comment link on the bottom of the page):



Comments are closed.