What is the Future of Scientific Publishing and Evaluation?

Highlights from a panel discussion held at the MPI-CBG on Nov 18, 2014. The discussion featured Jennifer McLennan, head of marketing and communications at the journal eLife, and three MPI scientists at different stages of their careers: Felipe Mora-Bermúdez (senior postdoctoral fellow), Simon Alberti (junior Group Leader), and Tony Hyman (senior Group Leader and MPI Director).

Publications are our primary scientific currency and play a major role in how we are evaluated when applying for jobs, tenure, and funding. Thus, the editorial, peer-review, and communication practices of major journals are important for all of us and can affect the progress of our careers, as well as the progress of science.

However, publishing has gotten out of control, with scientists valuing journal brand names over real discovery, and with hiring and funding committees relying on Journal Impact Factors to evaluate individual scientists. In addition, scientists are now spending more time than ever on the review process, slowing down the pace of science and especially affecting young scientists who need publications to advance. Has this gone too far? How are we going to tackle these critical problem, and what’s being done already?

Read a summary of the discussion here: https://dresdenpostdocs.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/future-of-publishing-and-evaluation/