3 ms·

Huge irony in Leslie Vosshall's suggestions. She is a HHMI investigator and has "made it". Telling others not to try for the top 3 journals which is the EXACT p

Huge irony in Leslie Vosshall's suggestions. She is a HHMI investigator and has "made it". Telling others not to try for the top 3 journals which is the EXACT path she used to get to her spot is insulting. Basically don't do all this stuff she did to get ahead because you'll make the system worse. It's like Mark Zuckerberg telling young programmers, don't start an internet company because society is suffering from all the evils of internet.

rgejman 11y ago
I think this is an unfair characterization of her editorial. She did not get to her position by getting mediocre papers published in good places! She is just asking authors to be honest about whether their findings are of sufficient importance/impact to be published in one of the top journals. I have seen many many colleagues run the journal mill, aiming as high as possible for as long as possible, just like she describes. It indeed wastes time and clogs up the system!
- untilHellbanned 11y ago
  I think this is an unfair characterization of my comment. I didn't imply she published "mediocre papers". I don't think anyone intends to publish mediocre papers. Everyone is trying their hardest and believes in their work. What I'm arguing is that she, like you apparently, aren't seeing the situation from the other person's perspective. Telling everyone else they are "wasting time and clogging the system" is just a game of "he said, she said". It's a battle nobody will win. Papers are subjective. Notice Leslie Vosshall continues to publish frequently in these top 3 journals after her FASEB post (2012). Is she really being honest with herself? It is pretty easy to come up with reasons why anybody's papers should or should not be published in the top 3 journals. Again, its subjective. What we need is not a pointing fingers solution, but a meritocratic one like the internet itself. We need data-driven decisions and not yes man/woman editors and wink-wink, nudge-nudge 3 crony reviewers behind closed doors. It continues to baffle me as to how the scientific community can be so scientific about their research and yet so unscientific about how they communicate this research. Technology is making more science possible, and yet we stick with thousand year old practices of evaluating and communicating science?

rgejman 11y ago

I think this is an unfair characterization of her editorial. She did not get to her position by getting mediocre papers published in good places! She is just asking authors to be honest about whether their findings are of sufficient importance/impact to be published in one of the top journals. I have seen many many colleagues run the journal mill, aiming as high as possible for as long as possible, just like she describes. It indeed wastes time and clogs up the system!

untilHellbanned 11y ago
I think this is an unfair characterization of my comment. I didn't imply she published "mediocre papers". I don't think anyone intends to publish mediocre papers. Everyone is trying their hardest and believes in their work. What I'm arguing is that she, like you apparently, aren't seeing the situation from the other person's perspective. Telling everyone else they are "wasting time and clogging the system" is just a game of "he said, she said". It's a battle nobody will win. Papers are subjective. Notice Leslie Vosshall continues to publish frequently in these top 3 journals after her FASEB post (2012). Is she really being honest with herself? It is pretty easy to come up with reasons why anybody's papers should or should not be published in the top 3 journals. Again, its subjective. What we need is not a pointing fingers solution, but a meritocratic one like the internet itself. We need data-driven decisions and not yes man/woman editors and wink-wink, nudge-nudge 3 crony reviewers behind closed doors. It continues to baffle me as to how the scientific community can be so scientific about their research and yet so unscientific about how they communicate this research. Technology is making more science possible, and yet we stick with thousand year old practices of evaluating and communicating science?