February 28, 2014
Do you decide whether to accept a manuscript for review based on the Journal that is asking?
To what extent does this influence your decision to take a review assignment?
October 24, 2013
PubMed Commons has finally incorporated a comment feature.
NCBI has released a pilot version of a new service in PubMed that allows researchers to post comments on individual PubMed abstracts. Called PubMed Commons, this service is an initiative of the NIH leadership in response to repeated requests by the scientific community for such a forum to be part of PubMed. We hope that PubMed Commons will leverage the social power of the internet to encourage constructive criticism and high quality discussions of scientific issues that will both enhance understanding and provide new avenues of collaboration within the community.
This is described as being in beta test version and for now is only open to authors of articles already listed in PubMed, so far as I can tell.
Perhaps not as Open as some would wish but it is a pretty good start.
I cannot WAIT to see how this shakes out.
The Open-Everything, RetractionWatch, ReplicationEleventy, PeerReviewFailz, etc acolytes of various strains would have us believe that this is the way to save all of science.
This step of PubMed brings the online commenting to the best place, i.e., where everyone searches out the papers, instead of the commercially beneficial place. It will link, I presume, the commentary to the openly-available PMC version once the 12 month embargo elapses for each paper. All in all, a good place for this to occur.
I will be eager to see if there is any adoption of commenting, to see the type of comments that are offered and to assess whether certain kinds of papers get more commentary than do others. All and all this is going to be a neat little experiment for the conduct-of-science geeks to observe.
I recommend you sign up as soon as possible. I’m sure the devout and TrueBelievers would beg you to make a comment on a paper yourself so, sure, go and comment on some paper.
You can search out commented papers with this string, apparently.
In case you are interested in seeing what sorts of comments are being made.
June 6, 2013
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea for the biomedical sciences has to have served as an Associate Editor for at least 50 submitted manuscripts or there is no reason to listen to their opinion.
February 11, 2013
Time: February, June or October
Setting: The Washington Triangle National Hotel, Washington DC
- Dramatis Personæ:
- Assistant Professor Yun Gun (ad hoc)
- Associate Professor Rap I.D. Squirrel (standing member)
- Professor H. Ed Badger (standing member, second term)
- Dr. Cat Herder (Scientific Review Officer)
- The Chorus (assorted members of the Panel)
- Lurkers (various Program Officers, off in the shadows)
February 11, 2013
Occasionally during the review of careers or grant applications you will see dismissive comments on the journals in which someone has published their work. This is not news to you. Terms like “low-impact journals” are wonderfully imprecise and yet deliciously mean. Yes, it reflects the fact that the reviewer himself couldn’t be bothered to actually review the science IN those paper, nor to acquaint himself with the notorious skew of real world impact that exists within and across journals.
More hilarious to me is the use of the word “tier”. As in “The work from the prior interval of support was mostly published in second tier journals…“.
It is almost always second tier that is used.
But this is never correct in my experience.
If we’re talking Impact Factor (and these people are, believe it) then there is a “first” tier of journals populated by Cell, Nature and Science.
In the Neurosciences, the next tier is a place (IF in the teens) in which Nature Neuroscience and Neuron dominate. No question. THIS is the “second tier”.
A jump down to the IF 12 or so of PNAS most definitely represents a different “tier” if you are going to talk about meaningful differences/similarities in IF.
Then we step down to the circa IF 7-8 range populated by J Neuroscience, Neuropsychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry. Demonstrably fourth tier.
So for the most part when people are talking about “second tier journals” they are probably down at the FIFTH tier- 4-6 IF in my estimation.
I also argue that the run of the mill society level journals extend below this fifth tier to a “the rest of the pack” zone in which there is a meaningful perception difference from the fifth tier. So…. Six tiers.
Then we have the paper-bagger dump journals. Demonstrably a seventh tier. (And seven is such a nice number isn’t it?)
So there you have it. If you* are going to use “tier” to sneer at the journals in which someone publishes, for goodness sake do it right, will ya?
*Of course it is people** who publish frequently in the third and fourth tier and only rarely in second tier, that use “second tier journal” to refer to what is in the fifth or sixth tier of IFs. Always.
**For those rare few that publish extensively in the first tier, hey, you feel free to describe all the rest as “second tier”. Go nuts.
January 31, 2013
Combative responses to prior review are an exceptionally stupid thing to write. Even if you are right on the merits.
Your grant has been sunk in one page you poor, poor fool.
January 31, 2013
There is nothing like a round of study section to make you wish you were the Boss of ALL the Science.
There is just soooo much incredible science being proposed. From noob to grey beard the PIs are coming up with really interesting and highly significant proposals. We’d learn a lot from all of them.
Obviously, it is the stuff that interests me that should fund. That stuff those other reviewers liked we can do without!
Sometimes I just want to blast the good ones with the NGA gun and be done.
Notice of Grant Award