Action Potential

New NN paper (published online January 1st)

Just one new paper to ring in the New Year – however it is a special one insofar as it claims to decide once and for all a longstanding question in gender-specific brain development. Enjoy.

Bakker et al., Alpha-fetoprotein protects the developing female mouse brain from masculinization and defeminization by estrogens

A very happy 2006 to you all!


  1. Report this comment

    Ioana Carcea said:

    Double blind peer review is a very good idea, especially for young and un-wellknown authors. The chance of having reviewers familiar with the work described in a paper they review is much smaller than the chance of not being familiar. Plus, the revieweres may have less difficulties in trying to be correct. I vote for DBPR.

  2. Report this comment

    Winston Byblow said:

    I’m in favour of DBPR. There appears to be a tendency to over-represent the work of a small number of authors within an area in the pages of NN. Favouring the work of these authors is an easier decision for editors and reviewers to make- a safer bet. That may be a correct decision most of the time. However, DBPR reduces potential bias and may encourage the peer-review process to become (even) more intellectually rigorous. This can only broaden the spectrum of research available to the readership, uncover a wider range of ideas, pose greater challenges to established paradigms and theoretical perspectives, and thus facilitate advancement.