As a young scientist I find it increasingly difficult to filter out the good vs not-so-good research publications. Especially given the number of publications that get published every day. Reports on retraction watch like this one, don't help. Very often some aspects of research can be missed or misinterpreted by an inexperienced young researcher.

I was wondering if there is any resource where I could suggest a publication for a quick, short commentary and obtain comments from the community? I am aware of f1000 idea but I'm not particularly fond of the subscription requirements they impose.

Thank you in advance for any suggestions.

  • You could try ScienceOpen. It's a free platform for researchers with the possibility of open comments, open peer-review and sharing research. – FuzzyLeapfrog May 3 '17 at 16:21
  • 2
    A journal club with your lab or department is a great way to do this on a paper-by-paper basis to get some other opinions. Obviously you won't be able to cover every single relevant paper in that setting, but it's a start and will help you learn the skills of critically reading literature. I know there are some attempts to do this on a broad basis but at least in my field the participation is far to sparse for you to likely find a write up on the paper you are interested in, and there are so many papers that it isn't really feasible for a small community of experts to review every paper. – Bryan Krause May 3 '17 at 16:39
  • If your field was biology, I would also encourage you to post specific questions about a particular paper on Biology.SE (not "please explain this paper for me" but "Scientist, et al. used approach XXYY to study Z, but in other papers I've read they used approach PQRS. The authors didn't mention PQRS. Is XXYY really a valid approach in this context?"). There might be another SE site that is appropriate for your interests if not biology. – Bryan Krause May 3 '17 at 16:43
  • 1
    @mjp For this reason my lab has at times had a journal club between 4-5 other labs; this worked out because we were all fairly small groups so the total participation was ~15 people. Our interests overlapped sufficiently that we would typically understand the content, if not the context (such that a key role of the presenter was to help establish context for the group) of the papers interested to others in the group, but diverged sufficiently that we would not typically read the same primary literature. The balance can be tough to achieve but definitely brought different perspectives. – Bryan Krause May 3 '17 at 17:06
  • 1
    @BryanKrause that's getting close to what I wish existed on a larger scale. Looking forward to other journals adapting similar features. The trouble with this approach is that many scientist are afraid to attach their scientific name to a paper rant, hence the low throughput. – mjp May 3 '17 at 17:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.