Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More information

Difference between revisions of "Vale 2015 Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A"

From Bioblast
Line 21: Line 21:
::::** Fourth, peer review by journals, although helpful, is certainly not a fool-proof mechanism for identifying problems or eliminating scientific irreproducibility, especially because the referees’ first task is to assess whether the work is “exciting enough” rather than “accurate enough.”
::::** Fourth, peer review by journals, although helpful, is certainly not a fool-proof mechanism for identifying problems or eliminating scientific irreproducibility, especially because the referees’ first task is to assess whether the work is “exciting enough” rather than “accurate enough.”
::::** In addition, one could imagine an option of incorporating author-initiated peer evaluations as part of a preprint, which most scientists do informally before submitting their work to a journal.
::::** In addition, one could imagine an option of incorporating author-initiated peer evaluations as part of a preprint, which most scientists do informally before submitting their work to a journal.
== See also ==
::::* Berg JM et al (2016) Preprints for the life sciences. Science 352:899-901. - [[Berg 2016 Science |»Bioblast link]]

Revision as of 18:51, 7 January 2017

Publications in the MiPMap
Vale RD (2015) Accelerating scientific publication in biology. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:13439-46.

» PMID:26508643 Open Access

Vale RD (2015) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

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 30 years. More experimental data are 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 PhD training. Because 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 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 the scientific community.

Selected quotes

  • Physicists, mathematicians, and computer scientists typically deposit their scientific manuscripts before journal publication in an open access e-print service called arXiv (pronounced “archive”), which was founded by Paul Ginsparg and is now operated by the Cornell Library.
  • Importantly, the public disclosure through arXiv is accepted by the physical science/ mathematics community as a priority for a discovery, and an arXiv posting is acceptable as a reference in a journal, book, or grant application. After the original paper is posted in arXiv, new versions can be uploaded: for example, after a paper has been revised through the journal review process or in response to other comments received by the community. However, earlier versions of the paper are retained, and the nature of the changes is indicated in revised uploads.
  • Currently, there are a few preprint servers specifically for biology, including bioRxiv.org (launched in 2013 by the nonprofit Cold Spring Harbor Press) as well as PeerJ and F1000Research, forprofit companies that also offer platforms for peer review. However, preprints in biology have not achieved a critical mass for takeoff.
  • The lack of peer review might invite lower quality or irreproducible data to be disseminated. Although a risk (SI Q&A Regarding Preprints), several factors mitigate such concerns.
    • First, arXiv and bioRxiv each have an initial screening mechanism that helps to eliminate overtly “unscientific” articles.
    • Second, the major factor for ensuring quality is that the reputation of the investigator is at stake, and achieving a good reputation within the community is a primary motivating factor for scientists. Indeed, a preprint submission is immediately visible to the entire community whereas a journal submission is seen confidentially by only a couple of referees. Thus, posting of a poor quality paper on a preprint server will be widely visible and reflect poorly on the investigator and his/her laboratory. Scientists take pride in their work and will be guided by their own internal standards in deciding when their work is ready to be released to the community.
    • Third, the paper can receive input (as this article has) from more than two or three referees, which could help authors correct flawed experiments/statements and help produce a better final product published in the journal.
    • Fourth, peer review by journals, although helpful, is certainly not a fool-proof mechanism for identifying problems or eliminating scientific irreproducibility, especially because the referees’ first task is to assess whether the work is “exciting enough” rather than “accurate enough.”
    • In addition, one could imagine an option of incorporating author-initiated peer evaluations as part of a preprint, which most scientists do informally before submitting their work to a journal.


See also

  • Berg JM et al (2016) Preprints for the life sciences. Science 352:899-901. - »Bioblast link