The (highly abbreviated) life story of a paper appearing in Nature often goes something like this: ideas are birthed and experiments envisioned. Pilot experiments are run, yielding beautiful preliminary data. Replication and controls are then gathered over the course of months, if not years of hard labor. The paper is written, submitted, and reviewed. A few (two is typical) rounds of review and revision later, it is published (with highly variable degrees of reviewer and editorial unanimity). But this is by no means the end, rather, just a milestone in the evaluation process by the community. In journals, post-publication evaluation has traditionally occurred in the form of peer-reviewed follow-up papers or formal commentary. Read more
Action Potential is a forum operated by neuroscience editors at Nature for the entire neuroscience community. We'll discuss what's new and exciting in science, be it in our journals or elsewhere, as well as science policy and publishing and provide updates from major meetings. Although we provide the opportunity to comment as a service to the community, we do not endorse all viewpoints represented here. To contact the contributors directly with confidential questions or suggestions for future entries, please e-mail email@example.com.