3 ms·

All of that - the setup, the instruments, dependencies, methods - should be pre-submitted to the journal before the experimental results arrive. The journal sho

by acchow 2y ago

All of that - the setup, the instruments, dependencies, methods - should be pre-submitted to the journal before the experimental results arrive. The journal should be the one that uses the data from the experiment and runs your pre-submitted program over the data to produce a result. Papers need to be published backwards.

bluGill 2y ago
Right now you don't even know who will publish you paper until all that is done. Your experiment might be try some promising molecule/drug in a petri dish, and see what happens, if the results are amazing you will get in a different journal than if the results are something happens but the control molecule/drug is better.
- acchow 2y ago
  Right, I'm saying journals should be picking which to publish before the results arrive. They should even publish it before the results arrive. And then publish again after.
bumby 2y ago
I agree that in an idealized way, this would be much better. But what do you do about going through all this process and ending up with a bad reviewer?* In those cases, how would you handle re-submitting to a different journal without looking like you're creating those artifacts after-the-fact to suit your outcome? Would the pre-submittals need to be handled by some third party? * the current process still has a lot of luck in terms of getting assigned referees. Sometimes you just plain get a bad reviewer who just can't be bothered to read the submission carefully and is quick to reject it. I would hate to see a system that only allows for a single shot at publication
- naasking 2y ago
  The review happens at the experimental design stage, not the publishing stage. Very little actual work has been done at that stage. After such a review, the journal agrees to publish your results regardless of outcome.

3 ms·

All of that - the setup, the instruments, dependencies, methods - should be pre-submitted to the journal before the experimental results arrive. The journal sho

by acchow 2y ago

bluGill 2y ago
Right now you don't even know who will publish you paper until all that is done. Your experiment might be try some promising molecule/drug in a petri dish, and see what happens, if the results are amazing you will get in a different journal than if the results are something happens but the control molecule/drug is better.
- acchow 2y ago
  Right, I'm saying journals should be picking which to publish before the results arrive. They should even publish it before the results arrive. And then publish again after.
bumby 2y ago
I agree that in an idealized way, this would be much better. But what do you do about going through all this process and ending up with a bad reviewer?* In those cases, how would you handle re-submitting to a different journal without looking like you're creating those artifacts after-the-fact to suit your outcome? Would the pre-submittals need to be handled by some third party? * the current process still has a lot of luck in terms of getting assigned referees. Sometimes you just plain get a bad reviewer who just can't be bothered to read the submission carefully and is quick to reject it. I would hate to see a system that only allows for a single shot at publication
- naasking 2y ago
  The review happens at the experimental design stage, not the publishing stage. Very little actual work has been done at that stage. After such a review, the journal agrees to publish your results regardless of outcome.