Another trend in life science, which is on the path of reaching epidemic proportion, is the publication of conceptual "work". I am talking about publications in

Another trend in life science, which is on the path of reaching epidemic proportion, is the publication of conceptual "work". I am talking about publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals papers, about some conceptual ideas or framework that they may have had. Technically conceptual papers are appropriate when getting real observation if irrelevant. The problem is that, this is never the case in life science... So, basically they feel like they can't be bothered to obtain factual information, or they don't want to risk being scooped, which means they assume their "novel" concept is somewhat obvious. Common features of these conceptual papers include: - coming from a high profile lab, in a ivy league school (i.e. high schmoozing factor); - said lab is typically the best equipped to actually tackle that concept; - not supported by any new data, but piggy backing on others previous data from others; - some form of deductive reasoning; - reads more like a novel; - claims for openness and future collaboration (but remember the 2nd feature about being in the lab best equipped to tackle the concept). At best these papers can be used to study informal vs formal logic. In reality, I find these papers being used as a form of first-to-publish or lobbying material to influence NIH funding. I think they work well as a good PR factor, and this not surprising since since the appearance of doing something has more value nowadays than being the one who actually moves the needle. So my conclusion would be the same as Prof Ionnadis, that these serve primarily as self-promoting and marketing tools. They lack the rigor and quality that we should expect from scientific journals, and should not be labeled as such.