Please reply to this post to comment on a paper published in Heredity.

Please reply to this post to comment on a paper published in Heredity.

There is a widespread view that peer-review could be improved, using the opportunities provided by the web; see here: https://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/

Another model is to publish papers accompanied by referees’ comments, and correspondence columns offer an analogous forum to air legitimate differences of scientific opinion.

This blog will attempt to combine some of the better aspects of these approaches. It will evolve in the light of Heredity readers and authors’ recommendations, but I have in mind that we will use it to

1) Publish rapid feedback on papers that have appeared in Heredity: the paper is wrong because … , readers should also see paper x because … . i.e. something like a correspondence section of a journal, but with the merit of being very fast and brief. The more incisive or interesting comments could be published in print.

2) Publish comments provided for public consumption by the referees: the paper is controversial because … but I recommend publication because … .

3) To publish discussion on the editorial direction of the journal. In large part the content of Heredity is determined by what is submitted, but the News & Commentaries, Short Reviews and Special Issues are commissioned. Are we neglecting important areas?

Contributions will be screened before being posted. Please reply to the appropriate topics to contribute.

There is a widespread view that peer-review could be improved, using the opportunities provided by the web; see here: https://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/

Another model is to publish papers accompanied by referees’ comments, and correspondence columns offer an analogous forum to air legitimate differences of scientific opinion.

This blog will attempt to combine some of the better aspects of these approaches. It will evolve in the light of Heredity readers and authors’ recommendations, but I have in mind that we will use it to

1) Publish rapid feedback on papers that have appeared in Heredity: the paper is wrong because … , readers should also see paper x because … . i.e. something like a correspondence section of a journal, but with the merit of being very fast and brief. The more incisive or interesting comments could be published in print.

2) Publish comments provided for public consumption by the referees: the paper is controversial because … but I recommend publication because … .

3) To publish discussion on the editorial direction of the journal. In large part the content of Heredity is determined by what is submitted, but the News & Commentaries, Short Reviews and Special Issues are commissioned. Are we neglecting important areas?

Contributions will be screened before being posted. Please reply to the appropriate topics to contribute.

Are there areas of Genetics in which Heredity should publish more (or fewer) News and Commentaries, Reviews or Special issues?

Reply to this post, to suggest future directions.

Are there areas of Genetics in which Heredity should publish more (or fewer) News and Commentaries, Reviews or Special issues?

Reply to this post, to suggest future directions.