tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post122852738683000843..comments2023-07-15T04:39:59.759-07:00Comments on Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience: A tiny drop of ink, a big win for scienceSteven Salzberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16549957293973146438noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-15967879798589670512009-03-19T07:44:00.000-07:002009-03-19T07:44:00.000-07:00Wow, thanks. I'll check those sites out. Although...Wow, thanks. I'll check those sites out. Although it is hard for a postdoc to make any changes by sending good science to those types of places, if I ever have a lab I'll do my part.Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252851229837417210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-69630849989399807302009-03-18T13:30:00.000-07:002009-03-18T13:30:00.000-07:00I wouldn't go so far as to say it's broken. In fa...I wouldn't go so far as to say it's broken. In fact, we (scientists and reviewers) are in the process of re-inventing it through open access publishing.<BR/><BR/>The degree of control exercised by commercial publishers needs to be 'broken', though, and the open-access movement is trying to do that - with considerable success in the biomedical sciences, I would add. (Not so much in computer science, by the way, or many other fields.)<BR/><BR/>Your "rotten tomatoes" method is already being tried - not through PLoS ONE, though that is one good example of a new model, but through (1) Biology Direct, which is even more radical - you, the author, can publish anything as long as you can get 3 of the editorial board members to review it or to approve reviewers - even if the reviews are negative. The thing is, the reviews are published too.<BR/>(2) Faculty of 1000 (F1000), which is exactly what you're describing when you write 'it's up to all the readers to score it. You can even designate certain scientists as experts, and their critique can be considered separate.'<BR/><BR/>F1000 works well as a go-to site to find out what people like in a wide range of scientific areas. Disclosure: I'm a faculty member of F1000.Steven Salzberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16549957293973146438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-28901899837860919612009-03-18T12:35:00.000-07:002009-03-18T12:35:00.000-07:00I wonder if you'd comment on the idea that our pee...I wonder if you'd comment on the idea that our peer-review system is broken. I have been saying that lately around the lab, and people tend to agree with me. It seems that everyone has an example of having a manuscript sit on a reviewers desk for way too long only to be rejected. And then find out that the reviewer was busy trying to repeat the results from the manuscript. Not to mention the idea that the journals are making a profit, and dictating the nature of research by controlling what gets published and where. That seems to be an awful lot of power for a government-funded entity (I call the journals government-funded b/c as you mention in the post, they essentially are). <BR/> Why not employ what I like to call the "rotten tomatoes" method? Its just like PLOS one, where everyone with a legitimate mansucript can publish. And then its up to all the readers to score it. You can even designate certain scientists as experts, and their critique can be considered separate, much in the way that rotten tomatoes has critics separated from the people.Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252851229837417210noreply@blogger.com