Darwin, Dartmouth, and undergrad science journals

My Darwin talk at Dartmouth on Thursday went well, and while there I had the privilege of meeting with editors of the Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, or DUJS -- which is, at 11 years, the oldest extant undergrad journal in the U.S., as far as its editors can tell.

i-13fd8df4e1cdc9f80c3e5fb7c0cc5f51-DEFC0356-DFC7-476F-A6EC-E0B810666F75.jpg

I knew from writing about scientific research that more universities are (wisely) involving undergraduates in serious research. But I hadn't known of any serious undergrad science journals publishing and commenting on research until the DUJS staff invited me over to Dartmouth to talk about Darwin and coral reefs. The journal, published fall, winter and spring, is roughly modeled on Science, with a front-of-the-book section offering news and commentary on recent findings and trends in the scientific world both in and outside Darmouth, followed by a section of papers presenting original research by Dartmouth undergraduates. The most recent tissue includes, for example, a book review, a review article on neurogenesis in adult human brains, the autistic brain, and an article on the Tuskegee syphilis study. And the website is well done, especially for a journal being done on the side by a crew new to the trade.

It's a nice thing to see.

More like this

As you may or may not know, there's been some conflict in the scientific publishing industry over the last few years. Traditional business models have been challenged by an "open-access" model, where the papers are freely available to the general public. In the traditional model, the money comes…
There's an article in yesterday's New York Times about doubts the public is having about the goodness of scientific publications as they learn more about what the peer-review system does, and does not, involve. It's worth a read, if only to illuminate what non-scientists seem to have assumed went…
Two recent events put in stark relief the differences between the old way of doing things and the new way of doing things. What am I talking about? The changing world of science publishing, of course. Let me introduce the two examples first, and make some of my comments at the end. Example 1.…
Last week, I mentioned that Billy Dembski is all worked up over a paper which he claimed was a peer-reviewed rejection of the climate change. The publisher, the American Physical Science, attached a disclaimer to the piece, noting that it was in fact not peer reviewed. Dembski now defends his own…