Some in the research community grouse about how members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) can hand pick reviewers and essentially fast track the publication of their papers or papers written by select non-academy members in the high-impact __Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America__ (__PNAS__). But a citation analysis linkurl:published;http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008092?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+plosone/PLoSONE+(PLoS+ONE+Alerts:+New+Articles)&utm_content=Google+Reader yesterday (1st December) in the __Public Library of Science ONE__ (__PLoS ONE__) suggests that the practice may be doing just what it's meant to do -- facilitate the publication of highly innovative research that might not make it into such a visible journal otherwise.
"The alternative publication tracks that __PNAS__ provides seem to do a good job in giving NAS members more autonomy and letting them publish really groundbreaking, highly-cited, high-impact work while letting some lower quality work get in," Harvard evolutionary biologist linkurl:David Rand,;http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~drand/ lead author on the...
 |
Interested in reading more?
Become a Member of
Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
