3 ms·

> "Novelty" is literally written in the "guidelines for authors" sections of many journals. A while ago I had a manuscript rejected because I used the word "no

by sndean 9y ago

> "Novelty" is literally written in the "guidelines for authors" sections of many journals. A while ago I had a manuscript rejected because I used the word "novel"... so hopefully the trend of emphasizing "novel" things [1] is changing. I'm trying to find the specific manuscript guidelines for that journal, but pretty sure they banned use of the word. [1] http://www.nature.com/news/novel-amazing-innovative-positive-words-on-the-rise-in-science-papers-1.19024 http://www.nature.com/news/novel-amazing-innovative-positive...

icelancer 9y ago
Nature itself is to blame for this. Read their guide to authors. The criteria for publication of scientific papers (Articles and Letters) in Nature are that they: -report original scientific research (the main results and conclusions must not have been published or submitted elsewhere) -are of outstanding scientific importance -reach a conclusion of interest to an interdisciplinary readership. "Outstanding scientific importance" screams no boring replication studies that confirm pre-existing work.
- stephengillie 9y ago
  > "Outstanding scientific importance" screams no boring replication studies that confirm pre-existing work. The note in the first bullet also forbids replication studies that confirm pre-existing work. > (the main results and conclusions must not have been published or submitted elsewhere)
  - icelancer 9y ago
    It can be interpreted that way, but usually that just means the work cannot be dual submitted for consideration or have appeared as a preprint without explicit permission.
- naasking 9y ago
  > "Outstanding scientific importance" screams no boring replication studies that confirm pre-existing work. I don't know, "couldn't replicate this other major study" seems like it would qualify as outstanding scientific importance. It all depends how you frame "scientific importance". Replication seems like it should be high on the list of scientific goals.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    >>I don't know, "couldn't replicate this other major study" seems like it would qualify as outstanding scientific importance. It all depends how you frame "scientific importance". Replication seems like it should be high on the list of scientific goals. You're missing the other side of it. Here's what's not interesting: Replicating the results of a study already believed to be accurate. Yet it is vitally important.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      But does it need to be published in the same venue as the original research? Maybe each journal should have a counterpart for replication attempts. Then you can read about stuff you probably haven't heard before in the main publication and go look for replications in the other.
- lozenge 9y ago
  Nature is not exactly your average journal though.

by sndean 9y ago

icelancer 9y ago

Nature itself is to blame for this. Read their guide to authors. The criteria for publication of scientific papers (Articles and Letters) in Nature are that they: -report original scientific research (the main results and conclusions must not have been published or submitted elsewhere) -are of outstanding scientific importance -reach a conclusion of interest to an interdisciplinary readership. "Outstanding scientific importance" screams no boring replication studies that confirm pre-existing work.

stephengillie 9y ago
> "Outstanding scientific importance" screams no boring replication studies that confirm pre-existing work. The note in the first bullet also forbids replication studies that confirm pre-existing work. > (the main results and conclusions must not have been published or submitted elsewhere)
- icelancer 9y ago
  It can be interpreted that way, but usually that just means the work cannot be dual submitted for consideration or have appeared as a preprint without explicit permission.
naasking 9y ago
> "Outstanding scientific importance" screams no boring replication studies that confirm pre-existing work. I don't know, "couldn't replicate this other major study" seems like it would qualify as outstanding scientific importance. It all depends how you frame "scientific importance". Replication seems like it should be high on the list of scientific goals.
- icelancer 9y ago
  >>I don't know, "couldn't replicate this other major study" seems like it would qualify as outstanding scientific importance. It all depends how you frame "scientific importance". Replication seems like it should be high on the list of scientific goals. You're missing the other side of it. Here's what's not interesting: Replicating the results of a study already believed to be accurate. Yet it is vitally important.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    But does it need to be published in the same venue as the original research? Maybe each journal should have a counterpart for replication attempts. Then you can read about stuff you probably haven't heard before in the main publication and go look for replications in the other.
lozenge 9y ago
Nature is not exactly your average journal though.