Peer Review: MORE COMMENTS
robison at lipid.harvard.edu
Mon Jan 15 20:19:39 EST 1996
Alexander Berezin (berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA) wrote:
: Extending 'devil's advocacy' to your commenets.
: (please see few more points below) - Alex
: On Sat, 13 Jan 1996 U27111 at UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU wrote:
: > [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
: > community?
: > 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?
: Question to the above statement:
: How strong is the EVIDENCE that for, say,
: last 20 - 30 years a lot of 'really importanat'
: developments came from articles published
: in Nature or Science. (and those which were
: in obscure places all were 'unimportant').
: How strong is this correlation IN REAL
: (again, what are the FACTS, not wishy-washy).
Well, there was this obscure paper published by two
nobodies named Watson & Crick...
Seriously, many key papers have appeared in these
journals -- and in many others. Even given the
known problems with citation analysis, the fact
remains that Nature & Science are heavily cited
Department of Cellular and Developmental Biology
Department of Genetics / HHMI
robison at mito.harvard.edu
More information about the Bioforum