A Revolution in Scientific Publication

 :: Posted by American Biotechnologist on 07-30-2014

Since we are talking about impact factors and Journal related stuff, (see When JIF Becomes a Dirty Word), I wanted to share with you a very cool concept that I saw recently in F1000 Research.

Aside from it’s move to the digital world, scientific publication, as we know it, has remained relatively constant for over four hundred years. Papers are written in a scientific method-based theme and broken down into bite size sections. Papers are very much there for scientists to communicate their findings with us and for the investigators to provide us with their personal interpretation of the data. While a sort of 2-way communication often happens via editorials and personal communication, the presentation of the data remains static and one dimensional. Results, which represent the heart of the researchar, often presented in tabular or pictorial format. Much of the effort and funding allocated to a research project can be distilled down to several figures and maximizing the communicative ability of these results is essential to successful publication. That is why the methodology used to publish a recent paper in the journal F1000 Research may, in fact, revolutionize the world of scientific publishing.

In the newly released article, German professor of neurogenetics, Bjorn Brembs, published a proof-of-concept figure allowing readers and reviewers to run the underlying code within the online article. Instead of presenting readers with a static figure that can only be interpreted by the author, Dr. Brembs submitted the figure’s underlying code to the journal, allowing readers and reviewers to render the figure in various formats giving them more control over interpretation of the original data.

According to Brembs, the ultimate goal is to set up all journal submissions in such a way that authors will no longer have to deal with figures. They will simply need to submit text with links to data and code, and the rest will be up to the reader.

The recent rise in retraction rates of scientific articles proves that attempts at reproducibility by other labs are crucial to cross-checking our understanding of science. With only one or two figures to choose from in the past, authors were incentivized to pick the view of the data that best demonstrated their conclusions. “The traditional method of publishing still used by most journals today means that as a referee or reader, the data cannot be reused nor can the analysis be checked to see if all agree with the reported conclusions”, said Brembs. “This slows down scientific discovery. We are pleased to be able to pioneer these two interactive figures with F1000Research, which will hopefully be the start of a big shift in the way journals treat their figures.”

How to Succeed in Science?

 :: Posted by American Biotechnologist on 07-29-2014

Want to know how to be a successful scientist? Watch and learn!

When JIF Becomes a Dirty Word

 :: Posted by American Biotechnologist on 07-28-2014

It’s not that we are obsessed with the Journal Impact Factor, (OK so we’ve written about it at least 7 times on this blog), however, we do feel that it plays an important role in the life of budding scientists and we strongly identify with DORA’s call to abandon its use in evaluating scientific merit.

You can read more about our opinion on the JIF factor in the links provided below. The intention of this post, however, is to draw attention to DORA’s call for research scientists to provide examples of JIF-less metrics and methods that can be used in lieu of the JIF as a metric for scientific accomplishment.

Some examples include:

  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center’s recruiting policy which encourages candidates to discuss their most significant scientific accomplishment without referring to their JIF ranking
  • Germany’s Max Planck Society is asking its recruits to provide full copies of the three papers which they consider to be their best ones-independent of their JIF ranking
  • The American Society for Cell Biology has moved away from the JIF and now evaluates candidates for the prestigious ASCB Kaluza Prizes based-upon the significance of discoveries they have made

To learn more about DORA’s call to abandon reliance on Journal Impact factors (JIFs) and adopt more enlightened approaches visit the DORA website.

For more information see:
Exploring scientific productivity
The Ugly Side of the Journal Impact Factor
Don’t Judge Me-I’m a Scientist
A Journal Impact Factor Scandal
Nobel Prize Winners Address Brutal Cuts in Federal Funding
The Journal Impact Factor and the Lazy Scientist
A YouTube Rebellion to the Journal Impact Factor

Don’t Stop Pipetting!

 :: Posted by American Biotechnologist on 07-25-2014

Single Cell Western Blot

 :: Posted by American Biotechnologist on 07-23-2014