In article <stephan-0102962158530001 at modem0-c.lifesci.ucla.edu>, stephan at ucla.edu (Stephan Anagnostaras) writes:
|> We all
|> know the best journals in neuroscience:
I don't think this issue is as clear-cut as you seem to think. It varies even
within the field of neuroscience.
These two journals have been getting worse. Admittedly many important results are
published here. However, because insufficient detail is included in the papers to
allow readers/reviewers to analyze them fully, people can and sometimes do get
away with publishing garbage just because it looks cool at first glance. There
seems to be an increasing tendency to publish 'flash in the pan' work that has no
real substance. I think this is the inevitable consequence of increasing pressure
to publish (seemingly impressive) work to survive/advance in neuroscience.
|> J Neurosci
|> J Phys
Rarely contains stuff relevant to my work
|> Beh Neurosci
Almost never read it
What is it?
I would add to these:
Neuroscience, Journal of Neurophysiology and a couple of journals specific to my
subfield. In addition the Brain Research series of journals contain good studies
that are often overlooked. I think the problem of noticing/accessing important
work will be eased by the massive information processing/presenting power that is
Ratings? To be honest I was unaware of 'impact factor' ratings until this thread.
It sounds like I didn't miss much.