PNAS

So let’s turn to the question of PNAS–The Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences USA. Generally thought to occupy the
number 3 spot after Nature and Science as far as prestige goes
(although some argue for Neuron, Cell, Nature Neurosciences etc).

There is a dark urban myth about PNAS however: namely that
publication there isn’t adequately peer reviewed–that NAS members
publish their own material and that of their friends. Most disturbing
is the notion that *if* you publish there, you are undercutting your
own work.

This myth is not correct. It is based partly on the exclusivity of
the NAS membership, and the idea that the Academy’s “club” like
aspects apply also to its journal. It’s based partly on rumors that
no doubt have some of their basis in envy.

In fact, all submissions to PNAS undergo rigorous peer review. This
includes manuscripts submitted under all three tracks (http://
http://www.pnas.org/misc/iforc.shtml). And furthermore, all submissions–
even under track III from the membership of the NAS itself– are
reviewed by the editorial board:

“The Board may reject manuscripts without further review or may
subject manuscripts to review and reject those that do not meet the
standards of the journal. Manuscripts rejected by one member cannot
be resubmitted through another member. When revisions are requested
prior to final decision, revised papers must be received within three
months or they will be treated as new submissions.”

I strongly urge our faculty to consider submitting your work to PNAS
and would be happy to sit down individually to discuss strategies for
success.

Jim