Publishing

Mike the Mad Biologist

Category archives for Publishing

Update/clarification: I want to clarify something critical. This is not about picking on a researcher or a country. It very well could have happened in the U.S. or anywhere else. I, nor you the reader, have any idea about the internal constraints these groups experience, or what was communicated to government officials. To the extent…

There are two very interesting posts about scientific publishing that raise some very good points. The first post by petermr makes a critical point about the publication process–academia has ceded promotion and tenure decisions to professional editorial boards, not experts and colleagues (italics mine): The academic system (in which I include public funders) has, by…

Peer review, the process in which scientific publication has to pass muster with critical reviewers, has a lot of problems. But a widely-cited report by McKinsey & Company consulting which claimed that Obamacare will result in one-third of companies dropping healthcare coverage for their employees is worth examining (italics mine): The predictable fallout led Democrats,…

Why Should Publishers Organize Science?

I found this post titled “What scientists really want from digital publishing“, and, after reading it, I’m pretty certain this scientist doesn’t want what’s offered. Before I get to the details, here’s what computer scientst Philip Bourne offers: “as a scientist I want an interaction with a publisher that does not begin when the scientific…

Comrade Physioprof raises a point I’ve always wondered about: …this old saw has been brandished: Innovation is, and always was, higher in smaller/younger labs[.] There is never any fucken evidence marshalled in support of this claim. I’ll admit that smaller labs can be quick and nimble, especially in comparison to large research centers. On the…

A recent change by Harper Collins Publishing regarding library-owned eBook has met with a lot of criticism: The value of this magically convenient library book — otherwise known as an e-book — is the subject of a fresh and furious debate in the publishing world. For years, public libraries building their e-book collections have typically…

I’ve railed against the rise of supplemental data and methods before, but, having just reviewed a paper where I spent more time reading the supplemental sections versus the actual fucking paper, what Scicurious wrote struck a chord with me: Sci wishes she could make her own flowchart of supplemental data. It might look like this:…

David Dobbs asks a really good question about the effect of scientific (scholastic) publishing on communication of science to the public: I want to consider another problem with the paper’s overvaluation: it discourages scientists from engaging the public. How so? Because many seem to think that when they’ve finished the paper, they’ve finished their work.…

Is Peer Review Really This Problematic?

So there’s an article that a fair number of people have gotten all het up about in The Scientist which criticizes peer reivew. I’ll state for the record that I agree with the article in that the review process needs to be much faster, and more people need to be reviewing (the burden is too…

On Avalanches and Publishing

Others have commented on this ridiculous Chronicle of Higher Education article about the “avalanche” of publishing (seriously, how hard is it to use Web of Science or PubMed?), but I wanted to address the authors’ three suggestions. First: First, limit the number of papers to the best three, four, or five that a job or…