A colleague and close friend recently enumerated the vast number of SFN abstracts authored by neuroscientists at his institution. I’m not so sure that’s something to brag about. Your grandmother and my beagle can submit abstracts if they fill out the forms and pay the fee (actually it’s more complicated than this, but not much). They’re not peer reviewed.
But that brings up a good question: what are the appropriate metrics for success in the field? Peer reviewed papers in high impact journals? Sponsored research awards?
And another question: why can’t the SFN move towards a system for peer review of abstracts? They’d be worth a whole lot more consideration if there was some degree of selectivity.
Jim
Discoverers and Discoveries 