U27111 at U27111 at
Sat Jan 13 01:49:08 EST 1996

berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin) wrote on 12 Jan
1996 11:46:24 -0800:

>That's what I am saying. Its pointless to attempt to
>change the nature of people - it will remain the same
>regardless. But you can modify practices in a given
>field in such a way that miscounducting behaviour will
>not bring the actor too much the avantage. In the above
>example people tried to publish in Nature because
>the present (arbitrary, fictional) reward system
>gives a great premium to anything that published in
>Nature (as opposed to elsewhere).

>As I said before, I see it as a sheer stupidity
>and anachronism (though deeply ingranted by
>historical reasons). For me it makes no difference
>at what paper (or by what publisher) my (or your)
>article is published for as long it is published and
>the community can find about its existence (say, thru
>abstract services) and all who are interested can
>obtain a copy of the full text.

[playing at devil's advocate... asking the types of questions a
typical Joe Lab would?]

But then by what standards due we judge excellence in our

Do we have to pour over countless papers looking for high caliber
work... instead of supposedly having it available in a hand full of
'prestigious' journals?

By track record? ...In biomedical research that could take years.

And how would I know if something was worth calling my broker about
if Science or Nature wasn't there to tell us which ones are
'mainstream' and *hot topics* - with full text to back it up?

Just some thoughts,


More information about the Bioforum mailing list