#eLife publication question:
Since eLife is more like a preprint server now, has anyone tried publishing in eLife, and once you got your reviews and revised the manuscript, sending the final version to a 'normal' journal (really just to get that line on your CV)?
If you tried, did it work?
Edit: just found out I asked the same question about a year ago:
neuromatch.social/@elduvelle/1…
Edit 2: seems that at the time of my first post, eLife was leaving open the possibility to do the final publication in another journal, it was one of the steps of their system. Now it's not listed in the main steps anymore, but they say:
"Can I submit my paper somewhere else following peer review by eLife?
As far as eLife is concerned, authors can do anything with their paper that they want to. It is their paper, not ours. This includes, but is not limited to, having their work
... Show more...#eLife publication question:
Since eLife is more like a preprint server now, has anyone tried publishing in eLife, and once you got your reviews and revised the manuscript, sending the final version to a 'normal' journal (really just to get that line on your CV)?
If you tried, did it work?
Edit: just found out I asked the same question about a year ago:
neuromatch.social/@elduvelle/1…
Edit 2: seems that at the time of my first post, eLife was leaving open the possibility to do the final publication in another journal, it was one of the steps of their system. Now it's not listed in the main steps anymore, but they say:
"Can I submit my paper somewhere else following peer review by eLife?
As far as eLife is concerned, authors can do anything with their paper that they want to. It is their paper, not ours. This includes, but is not limited to, having their work assessed by another journal on the basis of eLife reviews, although we expect most authors will not find this necessary or desirable. Please note that an eLife Version of Record is considered a regular journal article, which marks the end of the publishing process."
(I also edited my question because it doesn't seem you can "re-publish" your version of record)
#Publication #Academia #Preprint #Journals
So is this the deal with the new @eLife@fediscience.org system:
1- you send your preprint
2- it is reviewed (if they so choose)
3- you eventually upload a final “version of record”
OR
4- you send the reviewed preprint (+reviews) to another journal fo…
Neuromatch Social
matt nolan
in reply to El Duvelle • • •El Duvelle
in reply to matt nolan • • •I'm not seeing it as a bad thing, I like their new system, mostly!
matt nolan
in reply to El Duvelle • • •El Duvelle
in reply to matt nolan • • •@mattnolan yes, I agree and it all depends on what do we think matters when we define "Journal".
For my part I would like to support eLife without destroying my "career" so I'm wondering if we can do eLife + classical journal at least for now.. But haven't heard of anyone trying that.
matt nolan
in reply to El Duvelle • • •I think I understand, but I hope publishing in eLife would be seen as a positive. As a grant reviewer I couldn't care less where someone publishes, and publishing in eLife with clearly positive reviewer comments would be a great indicator that you were doing important work.
I'd be interested to hear other views. I think eLife is an opportunity to really improve our publishing culture, but if I'm in a minority then I guess publishing there isn't such a good career move...
El Duvelle
in reply to matt nolan • • •@mattnolan I don't think publishing in eLife is a bad carrier move, as long as you can still send your paper to one of the other journals who are still "playing the game" and give you an advantage on your CV. But if you can't do both (which is what I'm asking here), then you would have to choose between the two.
Just this week I was talking to a more senior researcher, who is on recruiting and grant committees in the UK, about where to publish my next paper and they were still pushing the impact factor parameter as the most important one for this decision.
matt nolan
in reply to El Duvelle • • •I see. I think if it was a version of record at eLife then you couldn't do this, but if you just had reviews then it would be ok. I hadn't thought that people might do this unless the reviews were really bad...
I'm pretty disappointed about the senior researcher you spoke to. All of the UK funders are big on DORA and so this shouldn't be still happening.
El Duvelle
in reply to matt nolan • • •@mattnolan
Well... everyone (or so) seems to have a different discourse when in public and in private on this topic.
Another colleague was telling me about how hard they worked for several years just to get 1 paper published in "CNS". And then they got a permanent position, which I don't think would have happened if that paper was, say, in eLife...
Realistically, many people and committees are still using the impact factor model, so I think we need to be aware of it, but still fight it.
Dan Goodman
in reply to El Duvelle • • •El Duvelle
in reply to Dan Goodman • • •Well that's better than nothing.. I wish there was a more efficient way to fix the system. Like: All researchers sign a pact where they say, from now on, they will Stop publishing in any for-profit journals. All of us.
And then committees would know that they can't use impact factor at least from that date onwards to evaluate a CV, so they'll have to figure something else.
PS: we can do the same thing to fix Climate Change BTW ;)
Björn Brembs
in reply to El Duvelle • • •@neuralreckoning @mattnolan
Because everyone will not just, we suggest instead:
a) funders start making institutional journal replacement infrastructure part of their eligibility criteria
b) GAOs remind institutions that under current procurement rules, negotiations with publishers are actually illegal if they are about publishing services.
royalsocietypublishing.org/doi…
Not all of them have to do this for an effect to kick in and it eventually will have the same outcome.
El Duvelle reshared this.
El Duvelle
in reply to Björn Brembs • • •ha, you even have a gif/meme for it 😂
These propositions seem great, is there any evidence of actual steps taken to implement them?
Also what is GAO? Government accountability office?
Björn Brembs
in reply to El Duvelle • • •@neuralreckoning @mattnolan
Yes, Government Accountability Offices.
Wrt to funders, the PlanS funders have not only posted our suggestion to their blog
coalition-s.org/blog/creating-…
Wrt to GAOs, the reply so far has been "interesting, we should look into this" 🙄
But at least the EU science ministers agree the journals must be replaced with open infrastructures:
consilium.europa.eu/en/press/p…
So broad agreement in principle, but few actual actions taken so far.
Creating a market to replace publisher monopolies
www.coalition-s.orgBjörn Brembs
in reply to Björn Brembs • • •@neuralreckoning @mattnolan
Been thinking of ways to speed these things up for some time now, but no luck, yet.
El Duvelle
in reply to Björn Brembs • • •it's a little depressing but we'll keep fighting! And thank you all for leading that fight :)
Dan Goodman
in reply to El Duvelle • • •@mattnolan I tried to organise a letter to the WHOSTP to say we should build a system that allowed free access to science, both to read and publish. Sent it to all the Nobel prize winners. None agreed to sign.
I should add that's partly on me. We wrote the text of the letter by committee trying to get consensus and it ended up being a bit hard to follow as a result.
So yeah, as Bjorn says, everyone will not just. Sigh.
El Duvelle reshared this.
El Duvelle
in reply to Dan Goodman • • •I think we should try this again until it works! Did they give any reasons why they didn't want to sign?
Maybe we could start by convincing the Mosers...
Dan Goodman
in reply to El Duvelle • • •Dan Goodman
in reply to Dan Goodman • • •El Duvelle
in reply to Dan Goodman • • •Dan Goodman
in reply to El Duvelle • • •El Duvelle
in reply to Dan Goodman • • •Dan Goodman
in reply to El Duvelle • • •Albert Cardona
in reply to El Duvelle • • •#academia
Albert Cardona
in reply to El Duvelle • • •@mattnolan Over the last 2 years, two of my postdocs got a faculty position *without even publishing any paper*, merely on the basis of the work they were doing and having presented it in seminars at the institution that then hired them.
Myself, I got my first faculty position (INI Zurich) *with small papers only from PhD and none from my postdoc*, only on the basis of work done and presented to them. My second faculty position (Janelia) I got *without any CNS paper*, only on the basis of preliminary data acquired at the institute than then hired me to expand the project.
I hope you see the pattern?
You only "need" a CNS paper if you are blind-applying to many places and nobody knows or cares about your research work. Particularly if the places you'd like to work at don't know about you or your research.
#academia
El Duvelle
in reply to Albert Cardona • • •@albertcardona @mattnolan wow, this is the first time that I hear about someone getting a faculty position (are we talking research position??) without a single paper! 👀 Congrats to both of them!
And I can believe that if people on the committee already know you, and like you, it will increase your chances to get the job. But most application situations are not like that... and when it happens, is it really fair to the candidates who are not already known by a committee member?
Albert Cardona
in reply to El Duvelle • • •Yes, these were assistant professor faculty positions. Papers per se don't matter. What matters is scientific research, and the potential a faculty sees in a new recruit to carry on a successful research project and to lecture effectively on the subjects they need cover for.
A lot of positions in academia, as far as I know, are opened with a specific research profile in mind, tightly fitting often a specific person. In those situations everyone else applying are largely wasting their time. So unless the position advertises as "broadly defined", it's likely one of these.
This sounds awful until you try the alternative: hire someone that may not be a great fit, or worse, that will fail the tenure track test – in both cases an expensive opportunity cost and many sunk costs that the Department won't get back.
The best way to hire, frankly, is to have a robust Visiting Scientist Program, which can go by many names, formal or informal (sabbatical being a usual cover for them). It's the open secret of many institutions. The Department gets to observe a candidate f
... Show more...Yes, these were assistant professor faculty positions. Papers per se don't matter. What matters is scientific research, and the potential a faculty sees in a new recruit to carry on a successful research project and to lecture effectively on the subjects they need cover for.
A lot of positions in academia, as far as I know, are opened with a specific research profile in mind, tightly fitting often a specific person. In those situations everyone else applying are largely wasting their time. So unless the position advertises as "broadly defined", it's likely one of these.
This sounds awful until you try the alternative: hire someone that may not be a great fit, or worse, that will fail the tenure track test – in both cases an expensive opportunity cost and many sunk costs that the Department won't get back.
The best way to hire, frankly, is to have a robust Visiting Scientist Program, which can go by many names, formal or informal (sabbatical being a usual cover for them). It's the open secret of many institutions. The Department gets to observe a candidate for weeks or months, interacting in all sorts of situations – lecturing, seminars, recruitments, interacting with staff across all levels, receptions, and more –, and the candidate gets to take a deep look at the place and its people. Very low investment and potentially high pay off for both parties, and the ability to walk away with the status quo unchanged, pride and all unscathed.
#academia
陳克帆
in reply to El Duvelle • • •@mattnolan
Dan Goodman
in reply to 陳克帆 • • •El Duvelle
in reply to Dan Goodman • • •@neuralreckoning @kofanchen@g0v.social @kofanchen@drosophila.social @mattnolan
This article from some time ago might be relevant..
Myths and facts about getting an academic faculty position in neuroscience
Their conclusion is that the CNS papers are not necessary to get a position, but I don't think they conclusively show that they're not helpful to get a position..
Myths and facts about getting an academic faculty position in neuroscience - PMC
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.govSteveRuss
in reply to El Duvelle • • •El Duvelle
in reply to SteveRuss • • •Dan Goodman
in reply to matt nolan • • •El Duvelle
in reply to Dan Goodman • • •@neuralreckoning @mattnolan
Not that it matters, but I don't think #Clarivate could even justify delisting them:
neuromatch.social/@elduvelle/1…
(Although, it is unclear whether eLife will end up doing what they want which is basically separating accepted from non-accepted papers)
But they will stop giving #eLife an impact factor though.
El Duvelle
2024-11-14 14:56:45