Nautilus

This weekly Nautilus column highlights some of the online discussion at Nature Network in the preceding week that is of relevance to scientists as authors.
The Nature Network week column is archived here.

The citation in science group's discussion is continuing after the meeting at the British Library last Tuesday (27 May), which was attended by a range of scientists, publishers, funders and others. Please join this group to provide your views on the use and misuse of citations in assessing research output. Forum topics include Metrics: the art of counting, a useful summary by Ian Mulvany of how metrics such as the Impact Factor and the H-index are calcluated. Ian concludes: "David Colquhoun’s admonition that we should just read the papers to determine the quality of the work is a great ideal, and it is certainly the only way that scientists can determine the value of the contributions of their peers in the published literature. However there remain many of us who are interested in what is happening in science who are not conversant with the details of particular fields, and we depend on derivitave indicators. Beyond the published literature there are many growing areas of contribution that at present are almost totally ignored." (See also Turning web traffic into citations, a post by Noah Gray at Action Potential, the Nature Neuroscience blog.)
In another discussion on the forum, David Colquhoun asks whether publication metrics are appropriate for assessing people and/or institutes? "There are three separate problems that need to be kept distinct.
(1) Are any sort of publications metrics suitable for assessing people?
(2) Are any sort of publications metrics suitable for assessing institutions?
(3) How accurately can each sort of metric can be measured.
There is little point in discussing (3) unless the answer to (1) or (2) is yes. It is very easy to see that the answer to (1) is no, simply by applying the proposed measure to someone who commands universal respect in you own field. The answer to (2) is perhaps more difficult. The argument against using methods like that is partly their undemonstrated worth, but also the distortion of science that their imposition will undoubtedly produce. The pressure to produce cheap headline-grabbing work will be enormous. The long-term reputation of science will surely be damaged by this sort of bean-counting approach."

In brief, some other Nature Network news:
From the recently re-named Lo Scienziato blog of Richard Grant, a conversation on the nature of networking, on the ways in which scientists communicate to collaborate (and other, unsummarizable topics).
William Burns asks "Are presubmission enquiries useful?" I have replied on behalf of the Nature journal editors, the short answer from our perspective being "not really": the editors prefer to read a full paper at initial submission, rather than just an abstract, for the reasons provided in my reply.
In a forum post, James Millington highlights an article A Young Scientist's Guide To Gainful Employment, containing "wise words for any junior researcher starting out on their academic career. It’s written with ecologists and biologists in mind but much of the advice is likely to apply to other fields."
Bob O'Hara draws attention to a paper on "turning tables into graphs" and asks readers whether they think it helpful to create figures instead of presenting data as tables in their papers.

Previous Nature Network columns.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 30, 2008
Categories: Nature Network round-up | Permalink | Comments (0)

Making discoveries, part II of Jonathan W. Yewdell's How to succeed in science: a concise guide for young biomedical scientists, is published in the June issue of Nature Reviews Cell and Molecular Biology (9, 491-494; 2008). "Making discoveries is the most important part of being a scientist, and also the most fun", writes Dr Yewdrell. "This article provides practical advice to young scientists on choosing a research topic, on designing, performing and interpreting experiments and on maintaining their sanity in the process."
Part I, Taking the plunge, was published in May.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 29, 2008
Categories: Careers | Permalink | Comments (1)

Via press release, the British Library is making 1,500 journals available for immediate download. A huge variety of titles will be added on 1 June 2008, ranging from science, medicine and technology to politics, history, anthropology and literature. The move is in response to customers' growing need for instant digital access to research material.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 28, 2008
Categories: Publications | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last week's Insight collection of articles in Nature (453,301–351;2008) is on the theme of regenerative medicine. The capacity of most tissues to regenerate derives from stem cells, but there are many barriers to the use of stem-cell-based therapies in the clinic. Such therapies, however, have the potential to improve human health enormously, and knowledge gained from studying cells in culture and in model organisms is now laying the groundwork for a new era of regenerative medicine.
Nature's web focus on Regeneration brings together content from Nature and Nature Reports Stem Cells to highlight where we are with the basic science, and the challenge of making medicine from stem cells, whether derived from adult tissue, reprogrammed cultured cells or embryos. The web focus also features a podcast and links to online resources.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 28, 2008
Categories: Publications | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Editorial in the June issue of Nature Chemical Biology (4, 323; 2008) discusses Correspondence, an essential mechanism for mediating scientific debates, and the ways to foster scientific communication offered by the Internet. The primary aim of the journal's Correspondence section is to provide a forum for readers to engage in scholarly debate about original research papers that have appeared in Nature Chemical Biology. From the Editorial:

We believe that correspondence serves an essential purpose in the advancement of science, and so the question becomes how new web technologies can further enhance scientific interaction and debate. We are interested in what Nature Chemical Biology readers think. What types of correspondence warrant publication in print? Would you value the ability to comment on or 'rate' papers online? Should we create a chemical biology blog? What is the best use of online social networking to foster scientific discussion? We invite you to join us at the Nature Publishing Group chemistry blog The Sceptical Chymist to discuss these and other questions related to correspondence and the future of online scientific communication.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 28, 2008
Categories: Publishing | Permalink | Comments (0)

Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease in the United States. Understanding the genetic and pharmacological factors surrounding nicotine and other substances of abuse will lead to insight into ways to prevent psychological dependence and addiction A special web focus, presented by Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, is a compilation of some key articles from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Nature Medicine, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, Neuropsychopharmacology and The Pharmacogenomics Journal on smoking, nicotine and addiction; many of them free to access online. Examples of featured articles include:
Development of Procedures for Early Human Screening of Smoking Cessation Medications
KA Perkins, C Lerman, ML Stitzer, CA Fonte, JL Briski, JA Scott & KNR Chengappa.
Contingency Management: Utility in the Treatment of Drug Abuse Disorders
ML Stitzer & R Vandrey.
Smoked Marijuana as Medicine: Not Much Future
H Kalant.
Clinical Pharmacology of Nicotine: Implications for Understanding, Preventing, and Treating Tobacco Addiction
NL Benowitz.
By Now, “Harm Reduction” Harms Both Science and the Public Health
AI Leshner.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 27, 2008
Categories: Author benefits, Disciplines | Permalink | Comments (0)

James Butcher, publisher of the eight Nature Clinical Practice journals, is giving a talk on careers in scientific publishing at this year’s Young Physiologists’ Symposium, on Sunday 13 July 2008, at Cambridge, UK. James writes: "The Young Physiologists’ Symposium is a fabulous meeting that is well worth attending. 10 years ago I helped to organise a YPS meeting at the University of Bristol, where I was a PhD student at the time. The internet was still in its infancy in the late 1990s and I don’t think we even had a website to promote the conference, but somehow we managed to get together young physiologists from all over the UK who had an interest in cardiovascular physiology. I’m really pleased to be attending again, this time as a speaker rather than as an organiser."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 26, 2008
Categories: Careers | Permalink | Comments (0)

This weekly Nautilus column highlights some of the online discussion at Nature Network in the preceding week that is of relevance to scientists as authors.
The Nature Network week column is archived here.

Today, the National Portrait Gallery in London unveils a portrait of Nobel laureate Sir Paul Nurse, who shared the prize for Medicine in 2001 for his work on cell division. Matt Brown asks Network readers to nominate their suggestions for whose portrait they would like to see in the gallery.
Good news for crystallographers: Hariharan Jayaram reports how a new generation of wikis, mostly based on the mediawiki platform, are being "constantly updated with crystallographic tips and tricks and plain old documentation by everyone from the creators of these powerful packages to seasoned users and even beginners."
In the Good Paper journal club, William Burns writes: "Perhaps we’re trying to be too scientific about defining what is good and bad writing? I think as scientists we hear about “a rule of writing”, and our eyes light up as if we have been given the keys to getting in Nature every week. We like to have some certainty, some “laws of physics” in the writing game. But I do feel a lot of the “rules” are snake oil." Bob O'Hara had addressed a similar theme in his blog post 'The hierarchical structure of bad writing', to which several people have made their suggestions about constructing (rather than the process of writing) a scientific paper, including Brian Derby, who writes "is no correct way to write a paper because the context is important." But, as Martin Fenner warns, "irony is a dangerous rhetorical device, because it can confuse the readers." (Examples provided.)
Allan Sudlow alerts readers to a debate called Citation in Science, to be held next week, 27 May, at the British Library in London (all welcome, but register in advance via this link), and proposes continuing the debate at Nature Network. He suggests a few topics to get started, including: ‘Tools for the Job’: does use of a single-citation search tool (PubMed, UKPMC, Google Scholar, Web of Science) bias the results? Is there a call for the use of mutiple tools?; and ‘Don’t Quote Me on That’: Even when the “original” paper is cited it is often misquoted. Do those citing not always fully understand the meaning behind a paper? Is this form of mis-citation more a case of misinterpretation rather than misrepresentation? For more on these and other similar, pertinent topics, visit the Citation in Science forum.
Senkei Umehara asks Nature Nanotechnology editor Ai Lin Chun: "Based on your experience, do you agree that there is a certain degree of “seasonality” in the number of submitted manuscripts? Could the acceptance rate differ between high and low seasons, if any?" See the editor's reply here.

Previous Nature Network columns.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 23, 2008
Categories: Nature Network round-up | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nature Publishing Group (NPG) and the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) have announced a new publishing partnership in which NPG will publish ACG’s official publication, the American Journal of Gastroenterology, starting in January 2009.
With an Impact Factor of 5.608 (Thomson, 2007), the American Journal of Gastroenterology is the highest-ranked clinical journal in gastroenterology. The journal is led by Editors-in-Chief Dr Joel E. Richter, of Temple University, and Dr Nicholas J. Talley of the Mayo Clinic in Florida.
Aimed at practicing clinicians, articles published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology deal directly with the disorders seen most often in patients. The journal brings a broad-based, interdisciplinary approach to the study of gastroenterology, including articles reporting on current observations, research results, methods of treatment, drugs, epidemiology and other topics relevant to clinical gastroenterology.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 22, 2008
Categories: Publications | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nature Biotechnology's May Editorial (26, 476; 2008) adds its perspective to previous discussion in Nature, Spoonful of Medicine (the blog of Nature Medicine) and at Nature Network about 'ghost authors' on clinical research papers from Merck. According to Nature Biotechnology, papers from the pharmaceutical industry are being unfairly stigmatized because of one company's past poor publishing practices. Nature Biotechnology welcomes some recommendations made in an Editorial about the affair in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (299, 1833–1835; 2008), such as conflict of interest and 'author contribution' statements, but goes on to add: "the JAMA editorial then goes too far, leaping on the findings to make recommendations that are unwarranted, not to say discriminatory, against the body corporate. In recommendation 4, for example, the editors imply that any research associated with "industry" is potentially tainted. In essence, the editorial calls for journal editors to take into account all financial support and financial relationships when deciding whether to publish a manuscript at all." After providing additional examples, the Nature Biotechnology Editorial concludes:
"Ghostwriting and guest authorship run contrary to the Corinthian spirit of scientific publishing. Although that spirit may have disappeared since the days when science was the exclusive province of the enthusiastic and moneyed amateur, companies that use ghostwriters and rubber-stamp experts as authors of their papers reinforce the impression that industry's only interest in publishing is to dress up marketing as science. But the editors of JAMA and other journals would do well to focus on content, not process. JAMA's attack casts a cloud over the entire industry. Stigmatizing any paper that comes from the private sector on the basis of an analysis of one company's poor publishing practices over five years ago is not only unjustified, it is discrimination pure and simple."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 21, 2008
Categories: Authorship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Molecular Therapy presents a special web focus, gathering together top articles on RNAi originally published in Molecular Therapy, Nature, Nature Medicine, Nature Reviews Genetics, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, British Journal of Cancer and other NPG journals, free to access for a limited time. This collection covers latest research on the development of RNAi-based tools for drug target and gene function analysis as well as work describing the development of the technology for therapeutic applications.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 20, 2008
Categories: Author benefits | Permalink | Comments (0)

Each year, the Royal Society grants ‘the world’s most prestigious award for science writing’ to a popular science author. This year’s nominees were announced last Thursday (unfortunately, an all-male list). As holiday season may soon be approaching for some, the nominated titles may contain ideas for whiling away some unaccustomed leisure time. Those interested in knowing more about the selected books can click on the links below for a short summary of each:
A Life Decoded, by J. Craig Venter
Coral: A pessimist in paradise by Steve Jones
Gut Feelings by Gerd Gigerenzer
Six Degrees: Our future on a hotter planet by Mark Lynas
The Sun Kings by Stuart Clark
Why Beauty is Truth by Ian Stewart
According to the Royal Society website, Professor Jonathan Ashmore, chair of the judges, said: "All of the six shortlisted books are compelling in their own way and really reflect the breadth and diversity of popular science writing." The winner will be announced at a ceremony at the Royal Society on Monday 16 June 2008 and awarded £10,000. The authors of each shortlisted book will receive £1,000. The winner of the Royal Society Prizes for Science Books Junior Prize will also be announced at the ceremony.
(via Matt Brown at Nature Network London forum).

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 19, 2008
Categories: Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

If the United States is losing its competitive edge in science and technology, as some indicators show (see Nature 453, 133-134; 8 May 2008), how can that trend be reversed? As well as various recent welcome recommendations to increase funding, graduate stipends, research facilities and teaching, May's Editorial in Nature Structural and Molecular Biology (15, 425; 2008) identifies the importance of more funding for high-risk, highly innovative projects. Although 40 European funding agencies have programmes that support such "novel" projects, the main funder in the United States is the National Institutes of Health. Its EUREKA program is for investigators "testing novel, unconventional hypotheses or are pursuing major methodological or technical challenges". Another initiative is the Grand Challenges Explorations, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. As the Nature Structural and Molecular Biology Editorial puts it: "If these programs in Europe and the United States lead to even a few discoveries like those of Archimedes—who, when he stepped into his bath and realized he could calculate the volume and density of an object by submerging it in water, leaped out of the tub and dashed outside without clothes on crying, "Eureka! I have found it!"—the monies will have been well spent."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 19, 2008
Categories: Careers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Networking is an essential part of the conference experience, but what opportunities are there for those who cannot make it to many, or even any, meetings? Can Web 2.0 applications enable scientists that do not have the time or money to attend meetings to reap the benefits of networking, and do Web 2.0 applications have a place in both our social and work lives? The June Editorial in Nature Reviews Microbiology (6, 410; 2008) takes a look at selected virtual networking resources, including wiki software such as OpenWetWare, preprint servers (for example, Nature Precedings) and scientific social networking sites (for example, Nature Network), that might be useful for microbiologists, and the editors welcome your comments here. From the editorial:

Finding the time to write and read blogs could stimulate collaborations or open up new career opportunities in science writing and education, but how many microbiologists actually write blogs? In the United Kingdom, the only microbiology academic who blogs on a regular basis is Alan Cann from the University of Leicester. His blog on new and exciting microbiology research, aptly named MicrobiologyBytes, has been particularly successful, with 300,000 page views over the past 18 months and 750 comments on 468 posts (Alan filters out all spam comments or 'splogs'). He also blogs about science in general on Science of the Invisible, and his enthusiasm for new technologies has led him to divert his energy into a non-laboratory-based career researching the use of online resources for education. Other active microbiology 'bloggers' include Moeslio Schaechter, whose blog Small Things Considered is hosted by the ASM, César Sánchez, whose blog Twisted Bacteria has a particular focus on actinomycetes and Ed Rybicki, whose blog ViroBlogy concentrates on virology. Some other bloggers, including microbiologist Rosie Redfield, focus more on their own research to provide an insight into the everyday lives of research scientists.
It is now even possible to attend conferences without leaving your desk: the first ever International Online Medical Conference was held on 10–11 May. But how useful will Web 2.0 applications be in your research? We welcome your views, as comments to this post.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 16, 2008
Categories: Communication | Permalink | Comments (3)

This weekly Nautilus column highlights some of the online discussion at Nature Network in the preceding week that is of relevance to scientists as authors.
The Nature Network week column is archived here.

Ennio Tasciotti writes a delightful account in the Nature Nanotechnology forum of the journey of his paper, from the experiments to final publication. I think it is a lovely account, one point of interest (among others) being that the author is not a native English-speaker.
In response to a discussion started by Cath Ennis about the obligation of authors to answer (sometimes frivolous) questions and comments from readers, Charles Darwin responds, helpfully: "take it from one who spent many years worrying about the questions and sensitivities of one’s correspondents and critics that they are rarely completely satisfied. By answering in detail you do them a great courtesy: some may be enlightened and informed, some may be grateful, some, I remember will then write a poisonous review of your work.
I wrote some years ago that ‘he who wastes an hour does not know the value of life’. Are the questions about which you fret worth an hour of your life or are there other waters to be – I ask this to a fellow seafarer – paddled?
These days I would have written ‘he or she’, of course."
At the Good Paper Journal Club, Martin Fenner starts a discussion of good papers about scientific writing. His first pick is Me write pretty one day: how to write a good scientific paper by W. A. Wells (J Cell Biol. 165, 757-758; 2004). "The paper starts by discussing the most important point: clearly state the take-home message of a paper", writes Martin. "The rest of the short text deals with the structure of a paper and with specific style issues." Half a dozen further articles and books are referenced, linked and discussed by forum contributors.
Cover letters are dissected at The Scientist, Richard Grant's blog. Richard writes that a well-written covering letter shows respect for the editor and might be useful in persuading them to send the manuscript out to review. "But — just like writing papers and giving seminars — cover-letter writing is one of those things that we are, as far as I can tell, supposed to acquire by osmosis. I wondered if you have hints or advice you’d like to share. If so, you should leave a comment." Twenty-seven comments follow, providing various degrees of detailed advice as well as a link to some humorous examples for those needing light refreshment.
The Science Blogging conference (London, 30 August 2008) plans are beginning to form, so if you are interested in coming along, whether you have a blog or are just interested in the topic, see here for suggestions about accommodation; volunteer to give a talk here; see here to offer a poster or a short presentation; and go here to make your suggestions for topics you'd like to be included on the agenda.

Previous Nature Network columns.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 16, 2008
Categories: Nature Network round-up | Permalink | Comments (1)

From Nature 453, 145 (8 May 2008):
Two research centres will open their doors in Cape Town, South Africa, this month in a bid to bolster theoretical physics and mathematical sciences across the continent.
A pan-African centre of the existing African Institute for Mathematical Sciences will be launched on 12 May, followed the next day by the National Institute for Theoretical Physics, to be headquartered at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study.
The two institutes are funded mainly by the South African Department of Science and Technology. The pair will work closely with each other, using mainly local scientific talent to contribute to regional cosmology and astrophysics programmes such as SALT (the Southern Africa Large Telescope) in Sutherland and MeerKAT, a radio-telescope facility under construction in the Karoo desert.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 15, 2008
Categories: Disciplines | Permalink | Comments (0)

Doctors used to try out their surgical skills on animals before being allowed to work on patients. Now just a handful of US medical schools still have animal labs. A Nature News report (453, 140-141; 8 May 2008) asks if they've lost a vital tool.

This month sees the shutdown of the live-animal laboratory at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio. The lab is currently used to train medical students, allowing them to practise on anaesthetized pigs before attempting their first incision into humans. But the school, which has used live cats, dogs and ferrets in its surgery programme in the past, intends to stop using live animals at the end of this semester in favour of technologies such as virtual simulations. It is the latest closure in a phase-out of animal labs across the United States: in 1994, live-animal experiments were on the curriculum in 77 of 125 medical schools; now it is thought that just eight use them.

In the context of a global trend to reduce the use of live non-human animals for surgical training, the News story reports a range of opinions from medical scientists, physicians, directors, students and others on the value of training using simulation or real animals.
See here for previous Nautilus posts and discussion on animal experimentation.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 14, 2008
Categories: Animal experiments | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Nature 453, 145 (8 May2008):
A researcher who blew the whistle over animal-rights issues at the University of Nevada in Reno went to court last week to try to win his job back after being fired.
Nutrition researcher Hussein Hussein, a tenured professor, was sacked last month by university president Milton Glick, despite a recommendation by a university administrative hearing that he merely be reprimanded or demoted. Four years ago, Hussein reported deficiencies in the care of laboratory animals that led to US$11,400 in fines against the university. He claims the university sought to fire him in retaliation.
After the administrative hearing, he was cleared of charges of plagiarizing graduate student work, but found to have incorrectly reported on $377,000 in grants, thus denying the university overhead costs.
Hussein's lawyer asked a Nevada judge to reinstate him, arguing that he was improperly fired. A spokeswoman says the university acted appropriately, and will vigorously defend its actions.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 13, 2008
Categories: Ethics | Permalink | Comments (0)

Is scientific progress being stifled by a lack of support for researchers who aim to change research directions? This is the question asked in Nature Cell Biology's May Editorial (10, 499; 2008).

At a time when cell biologists are exposed more than ever to diverse fields of research, it is notable that we are not seeing a parallel increase in researchers moving into new areas. There are certainly compelling examples of cell biologists who have successfully maintained more than one research focus or shifted the direction of their laboratory entirely — but not as many as one might expect. Perhaps people really do have a healthy obsession with their particular research focus, but is there also a fear of failure that is being compounded by the current funding and publishing process?

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 13, 2008
Categories: Careers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Presenting at a conference is a unique opportunity to communicate your work. Editors attend many conferences, and although they may not address an audience often, they have plenty of opportunity to observe presentation skills.
Nature Methods (5, 371 - 372; 2008), in its May Editorial, makes ten suggestions for making the most of such presentational opportunities, and invites readers to add their own tips and comments at its blog Methagora. The Nature Methods list:
1. Plan for the allotted time.
2. Know your audience.
3. Define your goals.
4. Structure your talk.
5. Keep your slides simple (content).
6. Keep your slides simple (design).
7. Beware of animations and multimedia.
8. Watch your delivery.
9. Choose your words.
10. Rehearse!
Advice can also be found on Nature Network: see Lab Daze blog; End of the Pier Show blog; Expression Patterns blog; and a post in the Visualization and Science forum, in which Hilary Spencer provides some very good, practical advice about the balance between information and presentation in Power Point slides.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 12, 2008
Categories: Communication | Permalink | Comments (2)

This weekly Nautilus column highlights some of the online discussion at Nature Network in the preceding week that is of relevance to scientists as authors.
The Nature Network week column is archived here.

An early collaboration between academics and industry is revealed in Scott Keir's news article. In a unique collaboration between crystallographers and designers, the story of Festival of Britain's Pattern Group is told for the first time at the Wellcome Collection’s London exhibition From Atoms to Patterns, which runs till 10 August. All but one of the contemporary (1950s) crystallographers took part anonymously and are unmasked here for the first time. “It does seem to have been perceived as a risk to venture outside academia—and to associate with trade and commerce”, comments co-curator Emily Jo Sargent.
Charles Darwin continues his assessment of science as discussed in the media, this time turning his attention to television. So far as the UK terrestrial channels are concerned, he found one factual science programme in 6 days, stimulating some acerbic comments, for "what now appears is – if I may coin a phrase – parascience. It does not deal with the raw work of our noble trade, but its applied results in society and the environment."
The University of Rockefeller Press, publisher of Journal of Cell Biology and other journals, has joined the publishers who no longer ask authors of research papers for copyright. The new policy is highlighted by Richard Grant at his blog The Scientist, and there is a comment thread that includes clarification of Nature Publishing Group's licence to publsh policies. And at Nature Precedings forum, the discussion of search, self-archiving, citations and "findability" started last week, continues apace.
Some journals apparently send unsolicited emails to authors asking them to submit their manuscripts. This practice is discussed at Gobbledygook blog, particularly in relation to open-access journals. The blog's author, Martin Fenner, advises potential authors so approached to "first check whether the journal (if it is a biomedical journal) is indexed in Medline and either has a reasonable impact factor or (for new journals) receives enough citations" before deciding whether to submit a manuscript.
Many journals do not approach potential authors in this way. Senior Nature editor Henry Gee addresses the question of Editors and the Research Agenda at his blog End of the Pier Show, in a post stimulated by Pedro Belatro's comment: "I also would like to see editors having a stronger say in the research agenda. They spend so much time reading, researching and deciding what should be interesting for a certain community, why not be more vocal about their ideas?" Henry writes: "What editors don’t do is go on the stump, making general statements about the specific subjects they’d like to see papers cover, and what they don’t like. There are many good reasons for this. The first is that all papers are welcome, simply because some of the most important papers are the most unexpected. Another, I think, is that to be too specific about what sort of things we like is to throw the game of science: editors aren’t in the business of shaping science, they are there to select the best papers for their journals. The two are not mutually exclusive, but they are distinct."
In a previous post, Henry tackles another topic of perennial interest: science careers and sexism. In commissioning a series of scientific profiles for Nature, Henry writes: "I scrupulously invited as many women as men to participate, so it was a surprise to me to learn (as perhaps it should not have been) that women featured disproportionately rarely in the published result." He goes on to question why this should be.
While on the subject of careers and training, debate continues at the News and Opinion forum on education: are we training too many scientists? ; and what's the value of molecular evolution training? Michael Thain, a UK biology school teacher writes: I have long lamented the almost complete lack of any developmental biology, certainly of non-human animals, in school biology. Indeed, as my colleagues are keen to complain, it is difficult at present to see how any school biology student can appreciate from their studies that there is a biosphere filled with non-humans. Extraordinary, isn’t it? And disgraceful." Please join us there to provide your views on these provocative Nature Commentaries.
Finally, at the Good Paper Journal club group, now numbering more than 100 members, the topic of definition of error bars is currently under the microscope.

Previous Nature Network columns

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 09, 2008
Categories: Nature Network round-up | Permalink | Comments (0)

The editorial in this month's Nature Immunology describes how some scientists are working proactively to prevent the harassment and harm of researchers who work on non-human animals. A letter in last week's Correspondence section of Nature (452, 934; 2008) suggests that more researchers need to take on this task. The text of the Correspondence:

Your News story 'Animal-rights activists invade Europe (Nature 451, 1034–1035; 2008) highlights the need for medical researchers to do more to communicate to the public the reasons why they need to use animals in their research and what this involves. All too often, there is a tendency to wait until extremism becomes intolerable before taking steps to counter it (see Nature 452, 282; 2008). The little information about animal research available to the public is frequently oversimplified and tends to be over-reliant on the perceived authority of the author. The scientific literature usually requires subscription to access it and scientific training to understand it. This leaves information gaps through which antivivisectionist groups can push their propaganda.
Organizations such as the Research Defence Society do much to address this deficit, but have limited resources and cannot be expected to counter the animal-rights campaigners alone. Anyone who is wondering why somebody doesn't debunk misleading claims made about them or their colleagues should consider the possibility that they are that 'somebody'. Even those who are not prepared to go public can always provide detailed explanations of their work and that of others in the field to scientific advocacy campaigns.
A fact your report didn't mention is that the new biomedical laboratory in Oxford — which, by the way, will house mostly rodents and very few monkeys — has been built. In a campaign that complemented the efforts of the police and government, Pro-Test were able to counter the animal-rights group Speak ('The voice for the animals') by capitalizing on the overwhelming support for the new laboratory among Oxford students and local politicians.
Extremism can be defeated, but only if scientists stand up and expose the myths and distortions that fuel it.

Further Nautilus discussion on the topic of animal experimentation can be found here.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 08, 2008
Categories: Animal experiments | Permalink | Comments (0)

The USCD-Nature Signaling Gateway would like to apply for continued funding from the US National Institutes of Health. If you are a researcher in this field, or if you are interested in this area and have been reading the articles and other content on the Gateway, please show your support by writing a letter to the team via this web form, before 30 May. Your response will help keep the content on the site freely available for all users.
The UCSD-Nature Signaling Gateway is a comprehensive and up-to-the-minute resource for anyone interested in signal transduction. The gateway represents a unique collaboration between the University of California San Diego (UCSD) and Nature Publishing Group, and is designed to facilitate navigation of the complex world of research into cellular signalling. Information and data presented here are freely available to all. It is powered by the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC). It has won the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) Award for Publishing Innovation for ‘a significantly innovative approach to any aspect of publication’.
The Signaling Gateway site has three main components: a data centre (repository and toolkits); Molecule Pages (structured data on key proteins); and Signaling Update (news and comment). The Signaling Gateway is an example of a pioneering business model that allows the scientific community free access to the wealth of cell signaling information through sponsorship, described in an article by Electronic Publishing Services as ‘the door to the future’

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 07, 2008
Categories: Access, Disciplines, Partners | Permalink | Comments (0)

The journal Heredity is publishing a special issue on experimental evolution, under the guest editorship of Graham Bell. The goal of experimental evolution is to understand the mechanics of adaptation by observing the outcome of natural selection in simplified laboratory microcosms. The experimental approach allows us to study fundamental features of evolution such as the fixation of beneficial mutations, the extent of specialization, the repeatability of adaptation and the effect of sex. The May issue of Heredity marks the great expansion of the field in recent years. It features mainly work on microbial and viral systems concerned with the genetic basis of adaptation, and the complications introduced by conflicting sources of selection and complex social interactions.
Visit the Heredity website to read the articles, all free to access.
Editorial: Experimental evolution
G Bell
Reviews
The spread of a beneficial mutation in experimental bacterial populations: the influence of the environment and genotype on the fixation of rpoS mutations
T Ferenci
Predicting evolution from genomics: experimental evolution of bacteriophage T7
J J Bull and I J Molineux
Experimental evolution: Experimental evolution and evolvability
N Colegrave and S Collins
The tragedy of the commons in microbial populations: insights from theoretical, comparative and experimental studies
R C MacLean
Experimental evolution of plant RNA viruses
S F Elena, P Agudelo-Romero, P Carrasco, F M Codoñer, S Martín, C Torres-Barceló and R Sanjuán
Kin selection and the evolution of virulence
A Buckling and M A Brockhurst.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 06, 2008
Categories: Author benefits, Publications | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nature Publishing Group's biomedical journals are being made available to more than 20 additional countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America via INASP’s Programme for the Enhancement of Research Information (PERI). The high impact journals in this collection include Nature, the Nature Clinical Practice series, the Nature research journals and Nature Reviews journals in the life sciences and medicine. The collection also includes more than 40 journals published by NPG on behalf of societies. For further details, please visit the INASP website.
Through PERI, INASP cooperates with publishers in the developed world to facilitate access to their publications within developing and emerging countries. INASP seeks to take a holistic approach to enhancing worldwide access to information and PERI is complemented by programmes at all stages of the communication cycle including library development, and working with local editors and researchers.
NPG journals are already widely available via the AGORA, HINARI and OARE programmes of the United Nations.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 05, 2008
Categories: Partners | Permalink | Comments (0)

This weekly Nautilus column highlights some of the online discussion at Nature Network in the preceding week that is of relevance to scientists as authors.
The Nature Network week column is archived here.

Who gets most credit when publication of two (or more) papers is simultaneous? Hilary Spencer asks this question in the Nature Precedings forum. Is credit correlated with being the first (even if by a few days)? And is the most cited paper the one with the most impact? Opinions about visibility, findability, impact and citation practice vary among those participating in the online discussion.
Many people feel that visualization began with Charles Minard’s 1861 map/graph of Napoleon’s march to Moscow and back, writes Rob Cogan in the Visualization and Science forum. He asks readers if they have any favourites milestones and highlights of visualization that were conceptually advanced for their times. Some attractive pictures have been posted in response.
Brian Derby has just "read and assessed (we don’t use such 20th Century termas as marking any more) a number of 1st year student projects. I am sick to the core of seeing an axel of a car.... Why can't students spell?", he asks. Referring to an article in the New York Times on mobile text language making its way into the class assignment paper, one commenter asks: "What’s the science paper of the future titled? afawk, amygdala activation assoc w/ alol, rotfl, and rotflmao" (a translation is subsequently provided).
On a similar theme, in her post 'In which I deconstruct the publication process', Jennifer Rohn initiates a discussion on stock phrases in manuscripts. "Why is it, for example, that adverbs like ‘interestingly’ seem always to be deployed for the most boring results?" Various words, phrases, use of abbreviations and aspects of grammar are deconstructed in the comment thread. Meanwhile, Charles Darwin continues his entertaining analyses of how science is reported in a different forum from the peer-reviewed literature: today's newspapers.
New blog of the week on Nature Network is A Meandering Scholar, in which Ian Brooks writes: "I hope to document the path of change: The continuing evolution of the Postdoctoral Fellow within academia."
Volunteers are needed for the 2008 World Science Festival in New York from 28 May to 1 June. Chris Wiggins writes that 4-hour volunteer shifts are available each day, at various locations throughout New York City. Volunteers will receive a festival T-shirt and free entrance to some festival events. The group for planning the Science Blogging 2008 conference Science Blogging 2008, set up a few days ago, already has 36 members. If you are interested in blogging and the social web, or if you have a blog about science, please join the group and help to shape the form of the conference, which will take place in London on 30 August. You can also enter the competition to design a logo.

Previous Nature Network columns.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 02, 2008
Categories: Nature Network round-up | Permalink | Comments (0)

It’s baffling to many that education reform has been so absent in the campaigns of US presidential candidates. In the 1 May issue of Nature (453, 28-30; 2008), Hal Salzman and Lindsay Lowell of the Urban Institute provide their take on US competitiveness in science and technology. Every time international testing of students on science and technology is done, pundits fret over what it means for the United States’ ability to compete. But while the mean scores place the United States as underachievers, no one seems to be paying attention to the long tails of distribution: the impressive number of high performing students and the equally impressive and dismaying number of low-performers. What do you think needs to be done? The time for discussion is ripe as the National Academies convened this week to refocus congressional attention on their clarion call for change, Rising above the Gathering Storm. Join our online forum at Nature Network and let us know whether you think we are training too many scientists.

In another Commentary in the same issue of the journal (Nature, 453, 31-32; 2008), Andrew Moore of the European Molecular Biology Organisation chides the European education system for not including more instruction on molecular evolution. Are students being shortchanged by not seeing the bioinformatics-based evidence supporting Darwin’s theory? Do you think molecular evolution should feature more extensively on the curriculum in high schools? Please join our discussion at Nature Network, which includes a lively response to Moore's piece at End of the Peer* Show blog.

*apologies, this word should be "Pier". Thank you to rpg (see comments) for pointing this out. Maxine.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 01, 2008
Categories: Education | Permalink | Comments (1)

The official forum for Science Blogging 2008, to be held at the Royal Institution, London, on 30 August 2008, has been set up at Nature Network.
The science blogging community is growing rapidly and reaching larger audiences. At Science Blogging 2008, science bloggers from around the world will have the opportunity to meet and discuss the pressing issues in science, science communication, publishing and education. What can science bloggers do to maximise their impact? Can blogging contribute to scientific research and careers? How can blogs be used to help educate the public about science? Readers and writers of science blogs, those who follow trends in online scientific communication and anyone else interested in learning more about science blogging will benefit from the discussions. You do not have to have a blog in order to attend.
To register, email network@nature.com (with subject line ‘Science blogging conference’) and let us know your job title, affiliation and whether you’re a blogger. Join this group, and help set the agenda in the discussion forum.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 01, 2008
Categories: Conferences | Permalink | Comments (1)