Main

Archive by category: Pre-publicity

Bookmark in Connotea

Non-traditional publishing choices for biologists

Zeba Wunderlich and Kishore Kuchibhotla of Harvard University write in Nature's Correspondence page (451, 887; 2008):
The paramount importance of publishing in biology dissuades many young scientists from making non-traditional choices with regard to where and how we publish our work. My colleagues and I believe it is in our own interests to identify the shortcomings of traditional publishing and to explore other publishing possibilities that are free of those problems.
What can we do? First, learn about our options. There are several innovative developments poised to change the publishing landscape dramatically. Video publications, preprint archives and high-throughput online journals are but a few that have recently surfaced (for a discussion, see Nature Network's Publishing in the New Millennium forum).The onus is on all of us to investigate these resources and to consider how they might enrich our science.
To make a difference, we also need to contribute. Frustrated by technical difficulties in reproducing published experiments? Then publish a video protocol in the Journal of Visualized Experiments. Have you benefited from a colleague's comments at a conference? Then extend the experience, and comment on articles published by PLoS One and posted on Nature Precedings. These initiatives will take hold and achieve their full potential only with strong support from the scientific community.
If we collectively embrace these ideas, publishing will become more effective. Although the psychological and social barriers to submitting a contribution initially are surprisingly high, becoming involved has proved to be rewarding. Ultimately, scientific progress and the published record have a symbiotic relationship — improved communication will enhance the pace, progress and efficiency of research.
[Note added by Maxine: In addition to the resources mentioned above, Nature Protocols is an online resource which welcomes the upload of protocols, in video or written form, and provides users with an interactive network for comments and additions.]

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 06, 2008
Categories: Data availability, Pre-publicity, Publishing | | Comments (0)

Bookmark in Connotea

Pros and cons of the embargo system

In an article entitled Science reporting's dark secret , David Whitehouse (a former BBC science correspondent) writes in the Independent newspaper about his growing feeling that the embargo system is a thing of the past. According to Mr Whitehouse, the embargo system encourages bland, indistinguishable science coverage across newspapers; forces Sunday newspapers to publish "daft" science stories; acts as a marketing tool for the journals; and is disliked by scientists. Read his stimulating article (at the link above) for more details of this indictment.
The Nature journals use the embargo system, which is explained on our author and referees' website here. We believe that the embargo serves scientists, authors, journalists and the public. Our policy is to release information about our content in a way that provides fair and equal access to the media, allowing it to provide informed comment based on the complete and final version of the paper that is to be published. Authors and their institutions' press offices are able then to interact with the media ahead of publication, and benefit from the subsequent coverage. We have our own press office to assist authors in their dealings with the media, and to assist the media to find out about our papers (we provide contact details of authors, and where there is a News and Views article about a paper, the News and Views author, for journalists so they can easily obtain comments on the articles before their own deadlines).
The benefits of peer review as a means of giving journalists confidence in new work published in journals are self-evident. Premature release to the media denies journalists that confidence. It also removes journalists' ability to obtain informed reactions about the work from independent researchers in the field.
We also encourage scientists to communicate with each other about their results, before, during and after submission of their articles, as explained on the author and referees' website here.
We welcome your views on our policies, in light of the Independent article and the explanations for our policies that we provide on our website.


Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 29, 2007
Categories: Pre-publicity | | Comments (1)

Search