News Peer review

NYT: Biologists go rogue

Spread the love
File:FileStack.jpg
What’s hot? What’s not?/Niklas Bildhauer, Wikimedia

And when they do… Seriously, from Amy Harmon at New York Times:

Handful of Biologists Went Rogue and Published Directly to Internet

On Feb. 29, Carol Greider of Johns Hopkins University became the third Nobel Prize laureate biologist in a month to do something long considered taboo among biomedical researchers: She posted a report of her recent discoveries to a publicly accessible website, bioRxiv, before submitting it to a scholarly journal to review for “official’’ publication.

And what about the “name” journals?

Researchers say they participate in the process in large part because the imprimatur of highly selective journals like Science, Nature and Cell has come to be viewed as a proxy for quality science. Like a degree from certain colleges, a study in an elite journal can be a passport to jobs, funding and promotions. More.

What’s happening to journals is really just a subset of what’s happening to legacy mass media.

They’re not gatekeepers anymore, not because they are unworthy but because they are no longer essential for communication. Standards are still essential for science, but a post-internet world must develop standards in different ways

Nobelist Randy Shekman was a pioneer of this trend. He just told off the journals after his Nobel because he no longer needs them.

Here’s a thought: Would the uproar around the retracted “creator” paper have gone the same way apart from the sclerotic journal system? Weak, dying systems are especially vulnerable to the Hair Trigger Outrage Machine that got in top gear on that one.

See also: Another Nobelist denounces peer review

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

One Reply to “NYT: Biologists go rogue

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    The whole thing is about reaching audiences. The old days meant journels etc were needed because the relevant audience could not be reached otherwise. Then the prestige of the publication added to the merit of the author.
    Now the internet can reached a targeted audience. No journals needed.
    Only the prestige of a journal remains. DO THE PEERS know better then the authors?
    Who decides?
    Easily a researcher can bypass some elite journal where they have credibility already. yet a unknown would have trouble.
    the science journals must prove they know better what a targeted audience should read then some internet thing.
    its not just the quality of the author but the reviewer organ.
    So both journal or internet host can do it. Both can fail. its about people and not the communication organ.
    UD promotes better ideas in criticism or advocacy on origin matters then science journals. UD is truly a place for thinking people. Science journals do not cover the contention as if to say one side has no merit and thats that.
    So they will not matter in the contention. they will miss it and not help thier own side.

Leave a Reply