Publish Houseseditorial houses
The Penguin Random House Audio is the leading audio book publisher in the UK.
I' m concerned about the carelessness in bio-medical research: too many results that have been released are only real under tight circumstances or cannot be reproduce. Just like the proverbially cooked frozen fish that did not jump out of a slow-heating pan of hot tub, bio-medical scientists are trapped in a system in which the amount of information and the number of requirements in the various documents has increased progressively over time.
There is a risk that the paper will become more and more large houses made of hay and not stable houses made of bricks. My work on my Lasker Award 2016 (with Gregg Semenza and Peter Ratcliffe, for the discovery of how to feel cell oxygen) was released more than a decade before. Today most of them would be regarded as picturesque, provisional and hardly any publication.
One, which shows that a tumor suppression molecule is needed for the signaling of tumors, would be criticised today for the lack of a clear mechanisms and the absence of animals (O. Iliopoulos et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93.10595-10599; 1996). Luckily, an expert journalist interfered and argued that publishing would open the research for the gene to other groups; such pardons seem to be less widespread today.
So what is the impetus behind today's'debt inflation'? In addition, technology has made it easy to create information that can be placed in on-line inserts. Each of these encourages evaluators and writers to require additional experimentation that is derived, tangent to the primary conclusions, or aims to increase the outcomes. It has always taken more guts to adopt a document than to refuse it with proposals for more experimentation.
Over the past few years, an interesting observational study described in Figure 1 has led to a range of tests focusing on their ruggedness. As a postdoc, a whole piece of papers could comprise the identification of two protein bonds and the subsequent experimentation to determine that the bond took place in live cell culture.
Today, the information that supports such a claim would be one or two separate tests described in Fig. 1 (or even more so, supplementary Fig. 1). Other work would describe works from various academic fields that raise the claim and climax in a character with a clinically relevant aura. In order to draw conclusions from experiential datasets, several proof guidelines are indispensable, because each unique point of view has traps and limits.
I' m afraid the world' s publications have evolved from paper that has proven a great assertion in different ways to paper with several assertions, each supported by a sole cane. Today, the definitive numbers of the securities often appear to be a long way to go. Too broadly defined demands are reaching the limits of the peer reviewed system.
Though I am an experienced critic, I find it hard to browse through the growing amount of information in paper and often come across materials I'm not an authority on. It will be necessary to take mini-sabbaticals to check paper if this tendency is to continue. Authors could successfully bring together critics with complimentary background to investigate such wide work, but they do so at the cost of several professionals investigating the same experiment.
I fear that the additional section, which the experts will examine less thoroughly, can be used to buried faintly. Unexplored issues and unresolved issues are often seen as shortcomings that threaten publishing. Doing so can lead to poor behavior, such as reading information, so that nothing appears inaccurate, consistent, or inexplicable.
Let us recognise that documents reinforce scientific knowledge when they openly recognise boundaries and enigmatic results. Let us also place more weight on the work' s qualities and whether it has made it possible to discover later, rather than focusing on where it will be public.