@kristine_willis @ArneBab @foaylward @bitbraindev
A key point here is that in scientific research competition is counterproductive. That no scientist in their right mind would want to compete with anyone. And if a work is so obvious that multiple labs are on it, collaboration beats competition any day. There's no point in being a month faster and scooping someone; even the concept of scooping is absurd: if anything, that'd be confirmation, validation – and very valuable. Most, though, would rather work on questions whose answers push the horizon of knowledge.

Resources are indeed finite, hence let's stop competition for papers, for grants, for positions. There is no point in that. Define what size of scientific research sector can the country support and go with that, with properly funded labs.

#academia #ScientificPublishing

Looking into #ScienceAdvances as a journal to publish in..
Why is there a reference limit, and why is it so low (80 references)? In this day and age? For an online-only journal?

science.org/journal/sciadv

PS: remember that you can rate the submission & revision process of journals on #SciRev scirev.org/

#ScientificPublishing #Academia #ScientificJournals

By the way the tools available nowadays for discovering scientific literature are remarkable. Two examples:

#SemanticScholar lists actually related and interesting papers:
semanticscholar.org/paper/Cogn…

And so does #Sciety @sciety but offering a different set of related papers:
sciety.org/articles/activity/1…

#ScientificPublishing

Cognitive hyperplasticity drives insomnia

Sleep is vital for maintenance of cognitive functions and lifespan across the animal kingdom. Here, we report our surprising findings that insomniac ( inc ) Drosophila short sleep mutants, which lack a …

^Sciety

I like seeing preprints as "works in progress”. Here the authors appeal to any readers who might be able to contribute to their study.

#ScientificPublishing

MIT dropped its contract with Elsevier, the huge scientific journal company. Their library instead arranged alternate access to journals and tools for researchers to get them. They’re saving $2 million/year:

sparcopen.org/our-work/big-dea…

#academicpublishing #OpenAccess #science #scientificpublishing

Unbundling Profile: MIT Libraries - SPARC

^SPARC

Today @eLife has reached 1,000 manuscript submissions using the new model, Reviewed Preprints elifesciences.org/about/peer-r…

See all published Reviewed Preprints elifesciences.org/reviewed-pre…

Within themes, #eLife makes no distinction between old-style articles (where editors decided whether a manuscript is accepted) and reviewed preprints (where authors decide instead). Keep in mind both have the reviews attached, including as of recently a brief assessment paragraph summarizing, with a controlled vocabulary, the significance of findings and, more importantly, the strength of evidence.

See the subset of #eLife publications tagged as #neuroscience elifesciences.org/subjects/neu…

#ScientificPublishing #academia #eLife

Reviewed Preprints

Preprints that have been invited for review by eLife are published as Reviewed Preprints and include an eLife assessment, public reviews and a response from the authors (if available).

^eLife

For anyone on the fence about #eLife's new publishing model, note there is no such thing as an "eLife paper", since the purpose of the review process in scientific publishing is to provide accurate, constructive reviews to authors. In modern times, dissemination doesn't depend on mailed-in printed periodicals.

Each eLife publication has an evaluation attached to it in the form of an assessment–be it negative or positive. Critically, authors decide whether to go forward with assessments as they are and go public, or to revise the manuscript and request re-review to improve both the manuscript and, consequently, the reviews and assessment.

In other words, nothing changed, except, it's the authors who decide how to move forward with their own manuscript, rather than the editors.

#ScientificPublishing #academia