A push for science mags to give up some control

[Derek Smith]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nob...

It's an interesting interview.

There's little argument that a scientific journal editor will think mainly of circulation and advertising. That's his/her role.

Taking to the internet is risky though, I think.

[Some Gump]

bks imo.

That whole piece to me reads like an advert for his own web based journal, that he runs.

[MiseryStreak]

That was my first thought reading the article this morning and the line about his own journal, but then I am extremely cynical and could be wrong, there must be at least a shred of truth in it.

[Derek Smith]

MiseryStreak said:

That was my first thought reading the article this morning and the line about his own journal, but then I am extremely cynical and could be wrong, there must be at least a shred of truth in it.

There have been complaints before about the power inherent in the position of magazine editors. It was the lack of scientific training, or at least current, up-to-date knowledge.

I will say that any editor will go for circulation over accuracy or relevance.

But, as you say, the first thought was that he was using his Nobel prize as a boost to his publishing project. I don't know enough to come to a conclusion though.

[BevR]

Derek Smith said:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nob...

It's an interesting interview.

There's little argument that a scientific journal editor will think mainly of circulation and advertising. That's his/her role.

Taking to the internet is risky though, I think.

I am pretty sure he is not the first person to say things like this. In fact i was talking to a few people int he lab today and we all agree that its a crappy situation at the moment. I thought that nature were planning their own online free to access journal, not sure what happened to it though.

You hear similar things when talking about funding opportunities, the large London/Cambridge centric labs get more and more funding while the same names are getting the big publications. It then becomes a vicious circle that doesnt reward creative thinking as certain labs will get stuck in a mindset on how research is done. In my field there are probably 2 huge players, a second rung of 5-10 who make up the major beneficiaries of funding.

However the biggest problem with science as a whole is still the whole career model, far too many PhD students for far to few research positions. First week of my PhD we had a talk about planning your career where everyone was asked if they wanted to have an academic career, 40-50 people in the room and I would say 95% put their hand up. We were then told that its unlikely a single one of us would have a successful research career and that we need to do our PhD with this in mind, building transferable skills and looking for options in industry. its an absolute mess.

[Derek Smith]

BevR said:

I am pretty sure he is not the first person to say things like this. In fact i was talking to a few people int he lab today and we all agree that its a crappy situation at the moment. I thought that nature were planning their own online free to access journal, not sure what happened to it though.

You hear similar things when talking about funding opportunities, the large London/Cambridge centric labs get more and more funding while the same names are getting the big publications. It then becomes a vicious circle that doesnt reward creative thinking as certain labs will get stuck in a mindset on how research is done. In my field there are probably 2 huge players, a second rung of 5-10 who make up the major beneficiaries of funding.

However the biggest problem with science as a whole is still the whole career model, far too many PhD students for far to few research positions. First week of my PhD we had a talk about planning your career where everyone was asked if they wanted to have an academic career, 40-50 people in the room and I would say 95% put their hand up. We were then told that its unlikely a single one of us would have a successful research career and that we need to do our PhD with this in mind, building transferable skills and looking for options in industry. its an absolute mess.

I understand what you say about creative thinking. If you tell some there's a new idea just outside the room they'll put garlic around the door.

You see the same names, and the same theories, all the time in the magazines and on TV. It doesn't do to rock the boat it seems.