We talk about molecular population and evolutionary GENETICS and GENOMICS. You know, the caliper measurement of a gene's evolvability in moles.According to this press release Trends in Genetics (TIG) is "the most established monthly journal in Genetics". I have no idea what that means, but if I were asked to name the top journals in genetics, TIG wouldn't crack the top four. In fact, here is my top four:
Additionally, TIG is published by Elsevier, which means TIG sold guns to terrorists and rogue nations (but they don't anymore). Well, TIG is also publishing an article in November (according to the press release) that will "shed new and unexpected light on some of the long standing macroevolutionary issues", whatever the hell that means.
Because I can't make heads or tails of the science, I won't dare try to distill the press release in a bloggerly fashion. I will point out that the authors of the study to be published in TIG have named their method of analysis (the one we can't figure out from the press release) "genomic phylostratigraphy". Sounds fun, and we'll keep our eyes peeled for it when it hits newsstands (or RSS feeds). But if the TIG article is anywhere close to as crappy as the press release, we may have to lower TIG down in our unofficial ranking of journals in genetics.
Life Science
Comments
Even odder, they are giving details in a presentation before the article is published...
Posted by: afarensis | September 1, 2007 8:24 AM
So many red flags... can't wait for November. This is either revolutionary or complete crap. History teaches that the latter is more likely.
Posted by: coturnix | September 2, 2007 6:56 PM
I think the following URLs give the manuscript and supplementary information,
">http://www.irb.hr/en/news./00309/genfsg/mediainfo/genfsg-manuscript.pdf>
">http://www.irb.hr/en/news./00309/genfsg/mediainfo/genfsg-supplementary.pdf>
Posted by: alias Ernest Major | September 4, 2007 12:25 PM
I like your top four, and I think TIG would show up in my top 10, at least. They tend to publish review papers much more than data papers (perhaps an artificial distinction in my mind), so I find them useful for broad conceptual things.
I'm hoping this little batch of confusion is not TIG's fault but is somehow directly related to the authors of this study or their home institution.
Posted by: TheBrummell | September 4, 2007 3:57 PM