The gatekeepers of the top scientific journals are people who themselves failed to publish in those journals when they were in academia. Had they been able to do so, they would today be authors, not professional editors. Could it be that the best science produced in the world today is being judged by the worst scientists? If true, that would be very unsettling.
It is quite doubtful that anyone would start graduate school or postdoctoral training with the idea in mind to become a journal editor. The vast majority of graduates initiating postdoctoral studies do so with an intent to become principal investigators. Something happens along the way. Disenchantment with an active career in science? Too few positions available? Harsh competition? Family choices? Perhaps all of the above.Read more...
My 6th residence at the Stellenbosch Institute For Advanced Study (STIAS), and the 3rd of my Permanent Fellowship, has begun. My project here will be a continuation of my first residence in 2015 “New approaches to anti-obesity therapeutics”.
During my first 2015 residence, I presented some of the approaches followed by my laboratory to investigate this problem, based on studies of the ALK7 protein, a highly abundant receptor molecule in rodent and human adipocytes that is a key regulator of fat metabolism and plasticity. Major advances have taken place in the past 9 years in the field as a whole, the best known of these being the development and clinical application of GLP-1 agonists.Read more...
The current system is broken, as argued in an earlier post. Given the arguments exposed there, is there a better way forward? I believe there is, and some ideas on how to go about it are presented below. Much of what is being proposed here represents the complete opposite of many of the fundamental principles of the current system: forums instead of journals, acceptance instead of rejection, commentary instead of review, disclosure instead of anonymity, community engagement instead of expert wisdom, live papers instead of dead papers.
Like it or not, we live in an on-line society; certainly most part of research communication and dissemination take place on-line. The word “journal”, in all its physicality, feels very much obsolete. For an on-line world, and for other reasons that will become clearer later, the word “forum” seems much more appropriate. “Neuroscience Forum” instead of “Journal of Neuroscience”. “Cancer Research Forum” instead of “Journal of Cancer Research”. How’s a Forum different from a Journal?Read more...
I have been honored to serve as Chief-Editor of the section in Cell and Molecular Neuroscience of a prestigious journal, until I resigned this month. It was time for me to leave space to someone with a stronger belief in the peer-review system. In my case, this has been slowly eroding during the past years, as I witness a steady decline in scholarship, transparency and basic respect across the publishing enterprise and its actors. Failed scientists become editors of powerful journals but their shallow competence limits them as over-qualified secretaries. Researchers with little time to spare accept to review papers, but end up providing senseless and superficial evaluations of dismal scholarship.Read more...
When I was about in the middle of my undergraduate studies, I decided that I needed some laboratory practice. So I joined a lab that was studying Drosophila genetics. The Prof. there, his name was Enzo Muñoz, was an old-school geneticist, with rather conservative views. We spoke often. He was talking about science. I remember one thing he said once: “There are no boring topics in science, only bored scientists.” I thought at that time that he was defending himself a little bit.
Later I understood that he was actually talking about something more profound. Nothing in science is boring. There are scientists that may get bored about something, but that does not make that topic a boring one, it only says that those scientists have been unable to find a way to crack that problem or make progress in that topic. Or they simply did not understand its depth.Read more...
The five videos below were recorded during my 2022 residence at STIAS (Stellenbosch Institute For Advance Study) during the build up to the launch of the first Nobel in Africa Symposium on Physics. I was asked to share some history and fun facts about Alfred Nobel and the Nobel Prize.
Nobel in Africa is a STIAS Initiative in partnership with Stellenbosch University, under the auspices of the Nobel Foundation and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences with funding from the Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation.
Alfred Nobel died in December 10, 1896, as one of the richest men in Europe. With no descendants, he left the vast majority of his wealth to the creation of awards in Chemistry, Physics, Medicine or Physiology, Literature and Peace. He provided only one instruction for the Prizes. They should be awarded for achievements that have afforded the greatest benefit to mankind made by individuals of any nationality, creed or race. It was the first ever truly international prize of its kind lacking any boundaries. Nobel’s vision was one of a united humanity striving for knowledge, beauty and peace. Perhaps now, more than ever before, is this vision more prescient, more profound, more urgent. Nobel in Africa represents the first ever series of Nobel conferences held outside Alfred Nobel’s native land under the auspices of the Nobel Foundation. The fact that they are taking place in Africa and in STIAS is of momentous significance. There could hardly be a better way to honor Alfred Nobel’s vision and legacy.Read more...
Prof. Eve Marder, from Brandeis University, was one of the founder editors of eLife, a scientific journal launched in 2012, one of the few journals that is still run by working scientists, as opposed to so-called “professional” editors, like most of the commercial journals.
Dr. Marder wrote recently an opinion article for the journal in which she sharply criticises the kinds of words, often derogatory, that reviewers use when judging research papers, grants and appointments.
She writes: “Over the years I have grown to truly abhor some of the words that are overused and abused when we review manuscripts, job candidates, and grant applications. In particular, I now detest five words: incremental, novelty, mechanism, descriptive, and impact. These words are codes behind which we hide, and are frequently used in lieu of actual explanations of what people think about the subject at hand.”Read more...
It can be considerably frustrating to have to summarize many years of work in just 150 words, but that is what scientists often have to do at the time of writing the Abstract section of their research papers. However, a well written Abstract is crucially important, as it is the first thing (sometimes the only thing!) that readers will read, including the journal Editors that will decide about its publication. It can really be a make-it-or-break-it for the success of the article. However, many young and budding scientists often struggle with this section, usually because of an inability to distill the single most important and essential part of the discovery in a clear and simple way. Read more...
Once upon a time, science journals were run by scientific societies and their editors were active scientists. Very few of these remain today. Instead, nowadays most journals are own by private, usually very large, publishing companies and their editors are “professional”. That is, their only job is to be journal editors, they are not active scientists. Most of them were active scientists earlier in their career, but left academia to become “professional” editors, usually, shortly after their postdoctoral studies. Because of this, most professional editors are much younger (no problem there) and considerably more inexperienced (hmmm… ) than the principal investigators from whom they receive manuscripts for consideration. Typically, these “youngish” editors can get advice and (one would hope) guidance from more senior editors within the same journal or publishing organization, but they are pretty much in charge of the main decisions of the manuscripts assigned to them.Read more...
NUS team develops man-made molecule that can ‘kill’ skin cancer cells
Professor Carlos Ibanez says the use of the molecule to activate the “death receptor” of melanoma skin cancer cells presents an option for a new treatment method for the remaining 45 per cent of melanoma skin cancer patients for whom current treatment fails. Photo: NUS Yong Loo Lin School Of Medicine.
