
No matter what the changes to the dissemination of research findings, there will always be a need for scientific papers. Continue reading

No matter what the changes to the dissemination of research findings, there will always be a need for scientific papers. Continue reading

It’s not just food that goes off. Continue reading

The first results of eLife’s pioneering peer review system might point to the future of scientific publication. Continue reading

Getting feedback is never easy. But the gain is always worth the pain. Continue reading

What we say and what we mean in our responses to reviewers. Continue reading

What’s the real purpose of scientific figures?
There’s a common misconception that they’re to show what we did. Continue reading

Could rugby teach scientists how to approach the review process?
On the night before the England rugby team attempt to win a first Six Nations grand slam since 2003, it seemed appropriate to have a rugby-themed posting. For those who are not fans of the game with the funny-shaped ball, bear with me… Continue reading

An obsession with publishing in three high-prestige journals is ruining careers and undermining good science.
Cell. Nature. Science. Three short words – but like another worshipped trio, their influence belies the simplicity of their names. These three journals exert a pathological and mesmeric hold on the entire biomedical research body, and it is high time that that spell was broken.
First off, and let’s get this in the clear so that there are no misunderstandings, it should be stressed that Nature and Science are terrible, terrible organs for the publication of scientific research. Continue reading