Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Publishing Pecking Order

My last post on dinosaur flesh reminded me that many of you are not familiar with scientific literature so I thought I would give a quick tutorial. First there is a distinction between popular science publications and primary journals. They are not necessarily easy to differentiate by name. For example, Scientific American is a popular science magazine--it is geared toward the educated lay person. It does not publish actual research, though it may report on research published elsewhere in the primary literature.

Primary research articles are contained in innumerable journals. This is where the nuts and bolts of research are reported. Each discipline has its own hierarchy of journals. Some journals are bread-and-butter journals. However there are several publications that form a sort of hub. Nature Magazine, Science Magazine, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)--are all prestigious journals (probably in that order) that cover a wide range of scientific disciplines. Nature has several more specialized journals that are also prestigious. Some people go their whole career without publishing in one of these journals. Really good researchers publish there repeatedly. Now this doesn't mean that every article in these publications is flawless--you can find bad papers in any journal. But when you see the names Nature, Science, or PNAS, a little flag should go up and remind you that these are journals that are pretty selective in what they publish.

5 comments:

Anonymous,  3/29/2005 03:26:00 PM  

Really, the vast majority of researchers will go their whole careers without publishing in one of these journals. Mostly because of the amount of specialization.

I was my professors last grad student (he is 72 now and I graduated last year). His professor was still coming into work regularly (in his nineties). He recalled to me how at one point he was completely abreast of every development in organic chemistry in the entire World (pre WW-II). That is simply impossible now.

Jared*,  3/29/2005 04:12:00 PM  

J. Stapley,

I don't disagree with you. Luck is also part of it. You can be specialized, but if for some reason your niche becomes a hot topic, or if you find something that has (or may have) broad implications, or if you have a really ground-breaking way of approaching a question, you are more likely to publish there. (Or, in the case of PNAS, if you are a member, or are invited by a member.)

What do I know though? I haven't published yet, nor do I even hope to publish in one of those journals.

Anonymous,  3/29/2005 09:49:00 PM  

Jared, give yourself a little credit. You should definitely hope to publish in one of those journals. I've been lucky enough to publish in Nature three times during grad school, and it wasn't as tough as I had anticipated. The most important factors (besides solid science) are "sexiness" of your research, and salesmanship and connections of your PI. PNAS has an impact factor quite a bit lower than Science or Nature, and you shouldn't have trouble getting solid work in there even without the other factors I mentioned.

Jared*,  3/29/2005 11:41:00 PM  

Thanks for the vote of confidence. At this point I'd be happy to publish anywhere, so I can graduate.

Anonymous,  3/29/2005 11:52:00 PM  

I hear you. grad school is a long haul, with no financial rewards. wait- science is its own reward, right? Looks like you're in MD. I'm heading down that way for a postdoc before too long...

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP