Year End Reviews Begin . . . →
This is the first primary literature end-of-the-year review I’ve come upon. I am perched and eager to tear into the diverse set of reviews being discharged from various journals. In particular, I am curious about the perspectives held by certain journals outside of the Nature/Science mainstream, including the Journal of Biology and the PLoS series.
What’s interesting in the review from the Journal of Biology is that these 10 papers are selected based upon the metric of “most accessed.” Perhaps this is a reflection of what kinds of papers researchers are more likely to read. I appreciate how these papers are provocative in the sense that they are controversial without being flagrantly (i.e. unscientifically) so. Take for instance titles like, “The ‘stem cell concept’: is it holding us back?” and “Why didn’t Darwin discover Mendel’s laws?”, don’t they make you want to tear into them now? Equally curious are “What are journals for?” and “Are we training pit bulls to review our manuscripts?”
Let the reading begin …
