“Are you satisfied with the current scientific publishing process?” asks Anna Kushnir, a student at Harvard Medical School, in the Publishing in the new Millennium forum on Nature Network. Maxine Clarke of Nature responded that most published authors say that the peer-review and publication process has improved their work, and some authors even say decisions not to publish work, when they include constructive criticism, have helped them to improve their papers for publication elsewhere.
Craig Rowell, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, replied that although the peer-review process does a very good job of quality control, people sometimes forget about the “gate-keeper” role of the editor. Even when reviewers like a paper, if the editor disagrees, the journal might not accept it. The role of the editor is to decide, after review, whether a paper in which the science is technically correct meets the publication criteria of that particular journal. Unfortunately, writes Craig, some mentors do not explain this to their students, let alone keep it in mind for themselves.
Nature 450, xiii; 1 November 2007
-
From the blogosphere by Maxine Clarke
An archive of the "From the Blogosphere" column on the Authors page in Nature, highlighting nature.com blog posts of interest to scientists in their role as authors and peer-reviewers. We welcome comments and suggestions.
-
Publishing in the new millennium -- 1 November 2007
- Date:
- Thursday, 01 Nov ember 2007 - 09:24 UTC
Last updated: Thursday, 01 Nov 2007 - 09:24 UTC
-
Comments
-
It’s nice to get this column as a blog, but I’m just wondering why only NN London gets this on its front page, and not NN Boston? Someone’s missing out!
I think this may be because I set the blog up through London (which is where I am based) — but thanks for the comment — I will follow up with the NN editors.