|
|
|
|
|
|
by data_acquired
1867 days ago
|
|
|
Yeah, this is a well-known controversial aspect of PNAS publishing. However, not all uses of this track of publication is necessarily nefarious. See this for instance -- https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-publishing-the-inside... . I was also told that use of this track is some times for very mundane reasons too --- like a professor trying to help a struggling grad student satisfy PhD requirements such as needing X number of papers to graduate. More often than not, good ideas do get held up in other journals for all kinds of non-scientific reasons. I've certainly not seen too many examples of overly-erroneous science in this track either, at least in genomics. I do thoroughly understand your concerns and distaste here that this allows prominent academics to push their (possibly incorrect) views/results on something far outside their expertise. I would love if PNAS publishes the peer reviews for papers such as these that pertain to ongoing health crises (eLife makes peer reviews public, but keeps the reviewers' identity anonymous). |
|
|
Indeed there are some wonderful contributed papers and some members use it responsibly. I also concur with with everything you said, just adding that even in laudable cases (struggling grad, ...), there is some injustice and it'll always be misleading.
Thanks for the precisions and the mention of eLife.
[1] https://twitter.com/arambaut/status/1248387395201847296?s=19