The Publishing Predicament

        The postdoctoral fellow waits anxiously at his computer as time ticks away. His fifth year in the lab is quickly coming to an end, and he has worked tirelessly to produce a cohesive story from his research project of three years. It took a year to prepare the final manuscript, and he is waiting on the email containing the verdict of his last submission attempt. Unfortunately, the paper had already been rejected from four journals, and he is slowly losing hope of his work being published in a highly respected journal. He plans on applying for faculty positions in the fall, but he senses a long journey lies ahead because he lacks one thing: a publication in Cell, Science, or Nature.

        Unfortunately, this situation is not uncommon for those looking to gain tenure-track positions in academia or research scientist positions within industry. Universities and institutions scrutinize the number of publications a candidate has authored in addition to the journals in which those publications appear. As a general rule of thumb, a candidate must have at least one publication in Cell, Science, or Nature. These journals are considered to be elite since they often publicize the most novel and provocative findings. In line with this reputation, these journals are highly selective, often rejecting 90% of submissions.

         Though these three journals are highly respected by the scientific community, researchers know that every piece of scientific work must be evaluated for its merit. In the search for novel discoveries, journals sometimes overlook the scientific reasoning that accompanies the work, leading to errors and faulty logic that may derail the research of others in a particular field. This problem has recently been highlighted by Randy Schekman, one of two scientists recognized for the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. In an article for The Guardian, he suggested that researchers boycott submissions to Cell, Science, and Nature and instead publish in open-access journals. Though the journals try to provide the scientific community with novel science, he argued that they often fail to recognize major flaws, which can later lead to retractions.

        Journal editors require a set of criteria for identifying reports that will further scientific progress, and novelty has become a convenient measuring stick. But it has become increasingly clear that this cannot be the main criterion for assessing the quality of scientific work. A new system must be adopted in which the merit and clarity of scientific work is more heavily considered. Not only will this change allow for more young scientists to continue their research pursuits in academia, but it will also encourage them to take more care with their work and present arguments that are sufficiently supported by their experimental results. No consensus has been reached concerning how this change can be effected, but the future of science depends on emphasizing the inherent quality of scientific reports rather than the journals choosing to publish them.

       

                      Randy Schekman, a 2013 Nobel laureate, has called for an end to the elite journal culture.
                          Courtesy: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/randy-schekman-molecular-biologist-248784.aspx