“now acceptable for publication” :-)

Screen Shot 2018-03-07 at 09.46.04

Ahhh….the best 4 words in scientific research? It’s been a long, arduous trip but finally we shall be adding a few¬†dents to our current knowledge of alternative splicing/splicing factors/temperature and the clock….will keep you posted.

Made me think about the time it takes to publish scientific research, and I came across this commentary article in Nature from 2016.

Screen Shot 2018-03-07 at 10.25.10

I think many of us working at the coal-face of research will recognise a lot of what it says, e.g.

Many….feel trapped in a cycle of submission, rejection, review, re-review and re-re-review that seems to eat up months of their lives, interfere with job, grant and tenure applications and slow down the dissemination of results.”

Also talks about “resetting the clock” – not to do with circadian clocks, but related to the time stamp of submission and resubmission(s).

Is it taking longer to publish? One contributor to the article says that the average time for their group of papers took 9 months…[9 months is good, no?]

Anyway, for the time being lets focus on…”now acceptable for publication” ūüôā


Collecting Cobras 2

Screen Shot 2018-02-22 at 10.40.44

As a follow-up to the earlier ‘Counting Cobras‘ post, Hugh pointed out this recent opinion article from The EMBO Journal written by Alain Prochiantz.

The author recommends playing the science ‘game’ – for example by trying to publish in the so-called high ranking journals even if they do not necessarily¬†reflect novelty and importance, because this is important for obtaining grant funding. Interestingly the idea of developing side projects appealed to me – the concept of planting seeds that, although would probably not get published in stellar journals or even accepted by peers short-term (see¬†‚ÄúYou should stop science‚ÄĚ, ‚Äúyou are making a fool of yourself”), but nonetheless with time might grow and branch out into research with high impact.

Other notable comments were the idea that “…there never really is a golden age [in science research]” and ” …it was not better yesterday but [..] it will be better tomorrow, provided that we never forget to defend the ‚ÄúValue of science‚ÄĚ.

and finally…”Science remains a game, a game that must be taken very¬†seriously, but nevertheless enjoyed”.

I suppose it’s trying to keep that balance – to play the game enjoyably!?