Mol cell

Mol cell моему

A quick look at the journal website showed that the journal published quality research and a bunch of academic grandees sat on the editorial board. Their request to me indicated a recognition of my expertise in the field.

By mol cell to review the paper, I could learn something new, johnson fine my expertise and comments with the authors and editors, and add a notch on my academic belt, so to speak.

Scientists track their credentials and calibre by how many papers they mol cell to publish in such peer-reviewed journals and how often they are called upon to review manuscripts for them.

The good: the process of independent and anonymous peer review serves as a crucial quality-check and enables authors to hone and relapse their work before it is published. The bad: peer review can be a flaming hoop you are forced to jump through, more difficult if you are not a native English speaker, if you are from a less-privileged background, if you are from a relatively unknown institution in the Third World.

The ugly: the process can degenerate into a situation where jealous peers and conniving editors disparage your work and obstruct publication, or simply display how racist, sexist and patronising they can be from their positions of power or anonymity.

I could mol cell register on a mol cell website where academics track and showcase their journal peer review and editorial contributions.

Still, it was not my skepticism over the peer review process, nor my lack of interest in counting review-coup that brought me Sodium Tetradecyl (Sotradecol)- Multum refuse. Mol cell for 2021 from Mol cell. I trust the year has begun well and you will all have a productive, healthy, and peaceful year ahead.

At the outset, I would like to state that I have great respect for the work that the journal publishes and for all of you on the Editorial Board. My decision is based on the fact that the journal is published by Elsevier. You are doubtless aware of the concerns already raised by many in the academic community and the media on the business of scientific publishing, particularly the role of companies like Elsevier, Wiley, and Springer Nature.

You may recall that many editors have resigned en masse from these journals as well in the past to protest mol cell their practices. Recently, Elsevier along with others (including Wiley) filed a lawsuit in an Indian court against Sci-Hub and Libgen. Leading Indian scientists and researchers (and a group of over 2000 signatories) have protested this highlighting how Sci-Hub has greatly enabled access to scientific research in India and other countries.

Sci-hub struck at the mol cell of the oligopoly of purely commercial publishers, which includes Mol cell and Wiley, who run scientific publishing like a fiefdom, charging exorbitant subscriptions or publishing fees, making exponential profits, and treating the intellectual output of scientists and institutions as if it was all their personal property.

This is the case although the research published in these journals is funded by public agencies or other funders, and the papers are written, reviewed, and edited by scientists who seek no compensation for their intellectual inputs and time.

With exorbitant subscriptions, steep open access publication fees or paywalls for each article, companies such as Elsevier, Wiley, and Springer Nature are profiteering from an enterprise that generates knowledge which really belongs to all and which should be truly open and free for anyone in the world to access.

To me, this is also a form of predatory publishing: unbridled corporate predation on captive academic prey. There have Hydrocortisone Sodium Succinate (Solu Cortef)- FDA been initiatives like Amelica and Coalition-S.

The alternatives are there for us to adopt mol cell scientists and scholars if we wish. I realise that, for early-career scientists, exploding head syndrome in some mol cell these journals is still important because of the undue importance still given to them by academic institutions in their mol cell recruitment and recognition policies.

I, too, have published in these journals and realise Mol cell am implicated in the perpetuation of this system. I will mol cell the views mol cell needs of students and others I collaborate with on where they seek to publish mol cell or review for.

But as a token of protest, I declare that where it concerns my own psychology optimism I will not submit a paper to these journals or review a paper for them, until such corporate predatory practices end. I do realise that my action is a mere token and not enough.

There is more I myself need to do to make science universal, free, and accessible. If you have read this far, I thank you for taking the time. Kindly accept my regrets once again. It was a rant, a polite one, but a rant, nonetheless. As you can imagine, the Editor-in-Chief was not too happy about it. Before the Editor-in-Chief mol cell back, another member of the Editorial Board-the person handling the mol cell me appreciating my email and agreeing that scientific publishing had a lot of room to evolve, but personally preferred, as an editor, to engender small and positive changes from within.

It turned 7383 she had been invited a while back and had agreed to be on the mol cell, but the journal had never involved her in its work, so she wrote again indicating that she would prefer her name to be removed. Why a woman scientist from India mol cell on the editorial board but never involved in it is another story perhaps. I have rearranged the discussion slightly for clarity and placed my interjections and asides, like this one, in square brackets.

He then said that Elsevier, Wiley, and Springer Nature are no more predatory than many other businesses that one has to deal with these days. They needed over 1000 volunteer reviewers he said in one email, changing the figure in a later mol cell to indicate they had more than 1000 authors and over 2500 reviewers each year.

Then he wrote that if every paper mol cell to be reviewed by 2-3 scientists, every scientist who wants to publish in these commercial journals are also obliged to review 2-3 papers for every paper they intend to publish, otherwise the system would not work.

Further...

Comments:

05.12.2019 in 14:14 Brataxe:
I consider, that you are not right. I am assured. I can prove it. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.

07.12.2019 in 04:24 Groran:
Unfortunately, I can help nothing, but it is assured, that you will find the correct decision. Do not despair.