Skip to main content

Tag: publishing

184. White House Rules for Open Access w/ Heather Joseph

Daniel Leave a comment

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS

The COVID-19 pandemic changed nearly every aspect of our lives. Schools and businesses shut down. Hospitals filled up. And many of us spent months alone or in familial ‘pods.’

But this dark period of global history had some bright spots, and many of them appeared in the scientific community. Rapid at-home testing became ubiquitous. mRNA vaccines were used to immunize millions against the worst outcomes. And funding flowed to scientists in virology, immunology, drug development, air quality and more.

As a society, we learned something else, though: science can save lives. More science, better science, and faster science can save more lives.

Read More

156. How to Identify and Avoid Predatory Journals

Daniel Leave a comment

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS

It starts innocently enough with an email.

This mail is with reference of your article published in the Journal of Cell Science, which is of good quality and making a good impact in the research field. In which you provided this email address to contact you.

We would be glad if you submit your manuscript to our journal, we do accept and publish Research/Review/Case reports/Mini review/Commentaries, round the year.

Unfortunately, if you fall for the scam and submit your next manuscript to this predatory journal, you’ll lose both your money, AND your research.

This week, we talk with Dr. Antonio Peramo, PhD of scientificwritingcourses.com, about predatory journals and how YOU can identify and avoid them.

Read More

151. Avoid These Phrases in Your Peer Review

Daniel Leave a comment

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS

The Peer Review villain, alternatively known as ‘Reviewer 2’ or ‘Reviewer 3’, has gained meme status. This is the person who takes your submitted journal article, drenches it in red ink, shreds it, burns it, and feeds the ashes to feral pigs.

And unfortunately, it has happened to all of us. There always seems to be one reviewer that doesn’t just ask for additional experiments, but finds a way to cut a little deeper.

Maybe it comes in the form of an emotive shaming (“Disappointingly, the authors failed to cite Smith, 2015”) or a veiled accusation (“It seems possible that the outlier data has been scrubbed from this report.”), but however it happens, it can affect something more than your experiments.

Some hostile comments might make you wonder whether you belong in science at all.

But, it doesn’t have to be this way. In fact, it shouldn’t be this way.

This week, we talk with a linguist and a psychologist about carefully crafting your peer reviews.

Read More

123. Anatomy of a Micropublication feat. Nate Jacobs of Flashpub

Daniel Leave a comment

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS

In a world where it’s “Publish or Perish,” you’d expect “publish” to be the more favorable option.

But, if you’ve ever spent a year or more performing experiments, crafting figures, writing a manuscript, finding a friendly editor and arguing with reviewers, that “perish” option might just sound pretty sweet right about now….

It’s no secret that the publishing industry has an inexplicable choke-hold on the scientific community. A handful of companies exercise editorial control, deciding which findings are permitted to enter the information stream. They charge the researcher who submits the paper, then charge exorbitant fees to the reader to see what was ‘printed.’

While the information age has flooded nearly every aspect of our daily lives, its transformative power sometimes seems to be walled off at the laboratory door.

Luckily, there are a few scientists who are willing to chip away at that wall.

Read More

083: Preprint First, Peer-Review Later

Daniel Leave a comment

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Publishing your research in a peer-reviewed academic journal is an exercise in patience. You write and edit, wait for feedback from your PI, wrangle the figures into some esoteric format, and then submit.  That’s when the real patience begins.

From submission to publication, the peer review process can take more than a year.  Meanwhile, you’re moving on to other work, and hoping a competing lab doesn’t scoop the science you showed at the last conference.

Enter the preprint.  Though it sounds unassuming, it’s a source of real controversy in the biomedical sciences.

Read More