KaiserJeep wrote:Plant, according to Berger's book Almost Human that I discussed above, he was turned down multiple times with multiple revised drafts from Science when he submitted his initial descriptive Homo naledi paper.
KaiserJeep wrote:Berger... has also secured funding for both his sediba and naledi digs from (gasp of horror) the PBS program NOVA and the National Geographic Channel. He would be a social outcast, shunned by all, were it not for his successes.
Thats a good thing because most geoscientists---- and indeed most scientists of all kinds--- work on mundane and often dull projects that would never be considered for publication in the top tier journals anyway.
Not really. If a Geoscientist of any particular flavor makes a truly important new discovery, they are better served to get it published in a top tier journal like SCIENCE or NATURE or NATURE GEOSCIENCE
And the prestige of these top tier journals isn't just based on reputation---quantitative studies comparing different journals show that SCIENCE and NATURE have the highest numerical score in terms of Journal Impact Factor. That means that hard data shows that papers in these top journals get read by more people and are cited by more people when they write their own scientific papers
AND that means the papers good enough to get into SCIENCE and NATURE tend to be highly influential within the sciences and tend to be much more important then papers published in the second tier journals.
Occasionally important papers paper do come out in the second tier journals, but usually they publish papers that weren't good enough to even be considered for publication in a top tier journal like SCIENCE or NATURE or NATURE GEOSCIENCE ---- its the job of the second tier journals to publish the routine specialty papers that don't make big breakthroughs for the few people interested in those topics.
Nature Geoscience... Only an idiot would publish a paper there
KaiserJeep wrote:Plant, the only thing I can say is that peer reviews and publishing practices which were developed for hardcopy journals and the isolated pools of knowledge in formal academia, are certainly not optimal if they cannot use the power of the internet. Instant access to the best minds, and perhaps more importantly, near instant referals to other minds (as in: I know a guy who could answer that question for us....) is what the internet is all about. If Science and Nature can't adapt their process to real time, they will almost certainly - and justifiably- slip in relative stature as the pinnacles of good Science.
The problem being, most scientists like Berger can adapt. The journal editors, whose primary value add is in selecting appropriate reviewers, cannot.
Have a nice day! And thanks for all the laughs!
I've been laughing out loud (LOL) for five minutes now over that last howler.
Horseshit….they are best served by publishing it where their peers read research and according to JCR that is neither Science nor Nature. As I pointed out the latest issue of Nature Geoscience is filled with papers that are completely unrelated to earth geology or geophysics. Only an idiot would publish a paper there that he wanted read critically.
....the latest issue of Nature Geoscience is filled with papers that are completely unrelated to earth geology or geophysics....
vox_mundi wrote:Radical Open-Access Plan Could Spell End to Journal Subscriptions
Research funders from France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and eight other European nations have unveiled a radical open-access initiative that could change the face of science publishing in two years — and which has instantly provoked protest from publishers.... “Paywalls are not only hindering the scientific enterprise itself but also they are an obstacle [to] the uptake of research results by the wider public”
The 11 agencies, who together spend €7.6 billion (US$8.8 billion) in research grants annually, say they will mandate that, from 2020, the scientists they fund must make resulting papers free to read immediately on publication. The papers would have a liberal publishing licence that would allow anyone else to download, translate or otherwise reuse the work. “No science should be locked behind paywalls!” says a preamble document that accompanies the pledge, called Plan S, released on 4 September.
As written, Plan S would bar researchers from publishing in 85% of journals, including influential titles such as Nature and Science. According to a December 2017 analysis, only around 15% of journals publish work immediately as open access (see 'Publishing models') — financed by charging per-article fees to authors or their funders, negotiating general open-publishing contracts with funders, or through other means. More than one-third of journals still publish papers behind a paywall, and typically permit online release of free-to-read versions only after a delay of at least six months — in compliance with the policies of influential funders such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Under the initiative, funding agencies including UK Research and Innovation, Science Foundation Ireland and the Research Council of Norway will require grant holders to publish only in journals that offer immediate open access, and under a licence that enables anyone to freely reuse and distribute the material.
The European Commission and coalition of national research funders in Austria, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK will implement the new policy from 1 January 2020.
Cid_Yama wrote:
I have purchased papers so I could (illegally) share them.
IN response to ... Plantagenet
...Point to the September issue that includes ... geoscience papers and I point to the June issue
You claimed the latest issue of Nature Geoscience didn't contain any geoscience papers.
The September issue of Nature Geosciences clearly contains multiple geoscience papers.
You made a ridiculous claim and you've been proven wrong.
....the latest issue of Nature Geoscience is filled with papers that are completely unrelated to earth geology or geophysics....
Obviously you did claim the latest issue of Nature Geoscience is filled with papers that are unrelated to earth geology or geophysics.
And the the latest issue is the September 2018 issue---not the June issue.
And, since the Sept 2018 issue of Nature Geoscience is filled with papers about geoscience, why not admit you were wrong when you made the ridiculous claim that the latest issue of Nature Geoscience doesn't contain geoscience papers?
....whichever issue is the latest ....
And here's a second hint, in case the first clue doesn't clear this up for you.
The current month (and the latest issue of Nature Geoscience) is definitely not June as you've been falsely claiming.
Lets look at an example from the June issue of Nature Geoscience
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 77 guests