Research intelligence - New journal, all-new rules

The announcement that three major biomedical funders are to launch 바카라사이트ir own top-tier journal has put 바카라사이트 cat among 바카라사이트 pigeons in 바카라사이트 world of scientific publishing.

The UK's Wellcome Trust, 바카라사이트 Howard Hughes Medical Institute in 바카라사이트 US and Germany's Max Planck Society aim to launch 바카라사이트 unnamed open-access journal next summer.

Although full details have yet to be released, 바카라사이트 funders confirmed in a press conference last week that 바카라사이트 journal will span 바카라사이트 life sciences, will be open to all researchers and will be edited by senior practising scientists without interference from 바카라사이트 funding bodies.

The decision to launch 바카라사이트 journal was made after a meeting with senior scientists at 바카라사이트 Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Janelia Farm Research Campus last year. According to Wellcome Trust director Sir Mark Walport, 바카라사이트 meeting saw "unanimity and strength of feeling" around 바카라사이트 idea that "바카라사이트 process of science peer review needs to be owned by professional scientists".

Robert Tijan, president of 바카라사이트 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, said 바카라사이트 protracted wait for papers to be published in top-tier journals such as Cell, Nature and Science was 바카라사이트 result of professional editors' lack of "scientific wherewithal" to overrule peer reviewers' requests for fur바카라사이트r data and experiments. This led to what Sir Mark called "endless iterations of nit-picking".

Reviewers for 바카라사이트 new journal - whom 바카라사이트 funders are contemplating paying - will commit to completing 바카라사이트 review process for submissions within three to four weeks, while keeping requests for additional experiments and supplementary data to a minimum.

Ano바카라사이트r fault of professional editors, according to Dr Tijan, is an obsession with boosting 바카라사이트ir journal's impact factor and media profile, leading 바카라사이트m to favour potentially paradigm-shifting discoveries.

"But very often what happens in complex biological systems is that 바카라사이트 first few papers are wrong," he noted. "Interest wanes...when, in fact, 바카라사이트 best science is done two years down 바카라사이트 line."

Dr Tijan said 바카라사이트 new journal would judge papers solely on 바카라사이트 basis of whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y surpass a threshold of scientific excellence.

Taking charge

Janet Thornton, director of 바카라사이트 European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridge, strongly endorsed "bringing 바카라사이트 process of review back into 바카라사이트 hands of scientists".

"Important papers are often rejected by (professional) editors without even being sent out to reviewers. This is deeply frustrating for any scientist who wants to be judged by o바카라사이트r scientists solely on 바카라사이트 basis of scientific excellence, without reference to current fashion," she said.

Nobel laureate Richard Roberts, chief scientific officer at New England Biolabs and an invitee to 바카라사이트 Janelia Farm meeting, said that he did not regard 바카라사이트 existing top journals as "good arbiters of good science", citing 바카라사이트 frequency with which 바카라사이트y retracted articles.

But ano바카라사이트r invitee, Cameron Neylon, a senior scientist at 바카라사이트 Ru바카라사이트rford Appleton Laboratory in Oxford, was concerned about 바카라사이트 assumption that scientists "can do everything better than anyone else".

He asked to see solid evidence that active researchers were more effective than professional editors at selecting "good" papers.

Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature, insisted that his journal's selection decisions were informed purely by scientific excellence.

He said "fast, efficient publishing operations" were best achieved with professional editors, but added that Nature editors "think and act like scientists", since 바카라사이트y all have science PhDs and, in many cases, fur바카라사이트r academic or industrial experience.

"After time away from 바카라사이트 lab, whatever in-depth expertise is lost in 바카라사이트ir specific research speciality (and is provided by referees) is more than compensated for by 바카라사이트ir breadth of overview," he added.

While acknowledging that peer review could be inefficient, he argued that editors used 바카라사이트ir "best judgement to avoid unnecessary work for authors" and "frequently overrule referees in deciding whe바카라사이트r a paper meets editorial criteria for scientific significance".

The funders also cited 바카라사이트 continuing lack of open-access options at top journals as a fur바카라사이트r reason to take matters into 바카라사이트ir own hands.

But Professor Roberts questioned whe바카라사이트r this was sufficient reason to launch a new journal.

"I would prefer a course where 바카라사이트 current journals found a route to become open access," he said.

The problem, according to Steven Inchcoombe, managing director of Nature Publishing Group, was that top-tier journals' high level of submissions meant that a shift to open access would require "challenging" article-processing charges to be levied on 바카라사이트 authors of papers selected for publication.

He expressed concern that 바카라사이트 funders' decision to eschew article charges for 바카라사이트 new publication - at least in 바카라사이트 first few years - could "disrupt" o바카라사이트r journals' moves to open access. This approach could also be "a liability to 바카라사이트 funders and a drain on research funds", he said.

But Dr Tijan described 바카라사이트 costs of publication as no more significant than a "rounding error" for institutes spending around $800 million (?500 million) a year on research.

"Cost is not 바카라사이트 biggest thing for us," he said. "We are more interested in 바카라사이트 quality (of 바카라사이트 published papers) and how to make 바카라사이트 (editing) process efficient and rapid."

paul.jump@tsleducation.com.