Keeping us all in the loop:
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Mike Herman
> Date: September 1, 2005 8:50:18 AM EDT
>
>
>
> Today is a big day for everyone at Krasnow. The design proposals
> for the new addition are due today. I am really excited because I
> think we are going to see some really interesting proposals. All
> proposals are due by 5:00 this evening. We will start looking at
> them tomorrow.
> We’ll talk soon.
>
> Mike
>
>
Jim
First of all, we are all terribly worried about our friends and
colleagues at Tulane and other Southern Universities that have been
affected by Hurricane Katrina. I urge everyone who can, to participate
in our Red Cross Krasnow fundraising drive for the victims of this
terrible disaster. This evening I was listening to the increasingly
desperate tone of a nurse at Charity Hospital as she described the
awful conditions under which she and her colleagues are practicing. We
must all do our best to help in this time of need. Our own Krasnow
family has strong connections to New Orleans. I urge all of you to
consider those ties and to do what you can to help.
Second, I am, as director of the doctoral program in neuroscience
program, extremely concerned about reports that our students are being
turned away from Mason graduate courses for reasons that are clearly
bureaucratic. This is not the vision I have for doctoral education and
I promise that I will do everything in my power to fix this type of
counter-productive barrier to our students. Please don’t hesitate to
contact me directly on these issues.
Jim
If I had my way, the food vending machines would be moved out of the Krasnow kitchen space. And I’ve been working with staff to come up with some creative place for them that would increase the amount of room for using the room the way it was designed–as a place for chatting and relaxing during the day.
However, there is another chronic problem with the kitchen. Some folks are not cleaning up after themselves. In a communal space such as this, this is unacceptable behavior. There should never be dirty flatware, utensils and the like in the sink–ever. There will always be dishwashing detergent and the drying rack. This is as much a public health concern as a matter of common courtesy.
Thanks,
Jim
Tomorrow we commence a new academic year at Krasnow. By my count, this
will make the 15th year of the Institute, the eighth since I became
director. As we begin anew, we can take pride in our community, which
is both on solid scientific and fiscal ground–even with a world of
uncertainty around us. None of this would be possible without all of
you: PI’s, staff, post-doctoral fellows and students. Let’s make this
year a banner one, for our science and also for the Institute.
Warmest wishes for a successful year,
Jim
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
The latest word is that we’ll be open for business in January of 2007! Which I find to be quite amazing. My gut feeling of course is that this is an example of being overly optimistic, but I’ll continue to give you the latest information I get from the University.
Jim
I promised that I would write about PNAS today…and maybe I’ll do that later, but first priority today is to welcome our new neuroscience doctoral students to Mason. I’ll see all of you at the new student picnic and hopefully I’ll post some good pictures to the blog tomorrow.
Jim
So you’ve decided to flip your rejected manuscript. How do you decide where to send it?
A colleague of yours has a friend who simply goes to the sorted list of journals by impact factors and systematically heads down the list! I suppose he starts at Science or Nature, heads through Cell, proceeds through Neuron….and perhaps eventually ends up at the Journal of Neurochemistry.
While systematic, the above approach is slow and probably not optimal for most junior investigators.
I think a wiser approach is to look very carefully for clues from the referees. Often they’ll suggest where they think the manuscript would be more appropriate. Many times, this advise is excellent. Particularly if the referee seemed to be positively disposed towards the science itself.
It’s also a good idea to look at where the articles you are citing are published–especially your most important citations. I’d add a component to that algorithm: make certain that the putative target journal is in fact more specialized in its scope than the journal you submitted to earlier.
So for example, you probably wouldn’t be wise to, having first submitted to Neuron and been rejected, now try Science. Although it’s possible you might succeed….I’ve seen stranger things happen.
Next post we’ll talk about PNAS and the various urban legends concerning its publication policies.
Jim
Where are we? Where are we going?
See how your insights are being addressed.
Stay tuned to the Krasnow Construction blog as we move from data collection (no more solicitations for interviews!) into the next phase of the project.
It happens all the time of course. Your good science is rejected following peer review at a journal that you think should have accepted it. It can feel like a punch in the stomach. But it shouldn’t. Here’s what you should do:
I give myself 24 hrs to decompress before I read the reviews again in detail. This time I’m not reading the reviews from the standpoint of why the referee felt that my manuscript definitely didn’t belong in Journal Y. Rather I’m looking for positive clues about where the referee thinks the work might be better suited. This would also be the time to seriously consider whether the work in question needs to be repackaged (i.e. put together with other experiments/figures).
But it’s important at this phase to put the referees’ comments in context. Perhaps there was another agenda at play. Perhaps they didn’t understand parts of the manuscript. Perhaps the editor picked the wrong reviewers. All of these are possible.
You then need to decide whether to flip the article (i.e. change the format and submit to another journal) or repackage. Obviously there are many factors that need to be thought about at this stage. I’ll only say that very often flipping is appropriate–and doesn’t get considered enough. If you really believe in the manuscript *and* if your trusted colleagues do also, then very often flipping to the right journal can be the right choice.
Now, how to decide on the right alternative journal? We’ll talk about that next post.
Jim
Discoverers and Discoveries 