3 ms·
Current attempts showing promise include initiatives like the Center for Open Science and journals such as eLife and PLOS ONE that emphasize methodological rigo
by jarsdel 2y ago
Current attempts showing promise include initiatives like the Center for Open Science and journals such as eLife and PLOS ONE that emphasize methodological rigor over impact factor. Additionally, policies from organizations like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandating data sharing plans are gradually moving the needle toward these goals.
- nextos 2y agoeLife is very rigorous, but also very selective. Most submissions don't pass editorial consideration. I've found their reviews much more detailed and technical than Nature Medicine or Cell.
- wjb3 2y agoWhen you say that eLife is "very rigorous," could you elaborate on what specific aspects of their review process or criteria you find particularly stringent, and how those compare to the review processes of Nature/Cell?
- nextos 2y agoeLife publishes reviews very prominently within articles, and they ask all reviewers to discuss their assessment after they have evaluated the article. I think this favors deep reviews. In Nature or Cell, I have sometimes seen 2-liners sent to authors as a review, or reviews where the reviewer clearly read the article for just 10 minutes before rushing an opinion. I wish eLife doubled down on this and disclosed the reviewer names after e.g. a 2-year embargo. This would make reviews even better IMHO, more skin in the game.