Manuscripts submitted to Glamor Mags are generally packed full of data. In fact, often one could envision a second paper being written based on what's in the supplementary materials alone. Of course, that might take the manuscript out of the running for publication in Glamor Mag.
So here's a question for you, readers:
here. So perhaps the better questions are:
Finally, if you decide to go for the Glamor Mag publication, how many times to you appeal a rejection before deciding to move on?
So here's a question for you, readers:
- Which is better: one publication in a glamor mag (as in the Cell/Nature/Science families) vs. two publications in a highly reputable but lower impact factor journal (say along the lines of JBC)?
here. So perhaps the better questions are:
- What factors impact your decision, and how so?
Finally, if you decide to go for the Glamor Mag publication, how many times to you appeal a rejection before deciding to move on?
Logging you in...
Dr. O · 786 weeks ago
One thing I've noticed is that most Glamor papers have many, many authors, so the time to publication for a compiled paper that everyone in the lab, or multiple labs, has contributed to might make it easier to accomplish this feat.
Dr Becca · 786 weeks ago
I see what you did there. :)
The whole Glamour Mag thing is something I've been thinking about quite a lot recently...in fact, it was going to be my next post! It still will be. I have never been much of a GM Kool-Aid drinker, and it's frustrating that it remains the measuring stick by which we're judged. But that doesn't mean I get to ignore it.
I don't know. From watching the experiences of people I know either go for or succeed in getting a GM paper, it seems like it's great if things kind of magically come together--you come into a project at the right time, etc--but can be a real struggle, too. I have a friend from grad school who got scooped because her PI wanted her to hold out on publishing until she had enough for a Cell paper, and another PI I knew fought back and forth with Science for over a year trying to get something in. I just don't know if it's worth it...but then, when I get comments on my K99 proposal that my biggest weakness is the lack of a super high-profile paper, maybe I need to start thinking differently.
@DoctorZen · 786 weeks ago
Dr Becca · 786 weeks ago
biochem belle 43p · 786 weeks ago
biochem belle 43p · 786 weeks ago
Spiny Norman · 786 weeks ago
For what it's worth I read 400 job applications this year, and the majority of people who had K99 awards did *not* have S/N/C papers. I am seeing many people (including from my own lab) get interviews and jobs at great places without papers in S/N/C but with papers in Genes Dev, JCB, Neuron, Dev Cell, PNAS, etc.
No question that a lot of hiring committees are looking for S/N/C papers (and we are not immune from that), but from what I'm seeing in the searches here (a very highly-regarded state U.) and in many other places, there is little-to-no correlation between these papers and who actually gets the offer in the end. We have seen *so* many candidates who looked great on paper and *completely* fell flat when they actually visited.
So how much does it really matter? It all depends on the nature of your ambition. S/N/C papers are *definitely* less important in NIH study sections than steady productivity in good journals. That is abundantly clear. If you are a young faculty member gunning for HHMI, on the other hand, those papers are very nearly essential.
biochem belle 43p · 786 weeks ago
zfaulkes 6p · 786 weeks ago
I suspect many faculty have experience of participating in job searches in one department at one institution. Not a good scenario for induction.
biochem belle 43p · 786 weeks ago
Dr. O · 786 weeks ago
DrDoyenne · 786 weeks ago
The result was a short, to-the-point manuscript. However, we had a lot more data and insights from our portion of the study. So my former post-doc (also an author on the PNAS paper) wrote a second, full-length paper that addressed a somewhat different set of questions from the PNAS paper and which included the data that could not be fitted into the shorter, joint paper. She was the lead author on the second paper in a top journal in our field. Nature Reports Climate Change picked up both papers to highlight, and she got a lot of exposure, which greatly impressed her university colleagues (she's going to be up for tenure soon).
So in this case, the two papers in very reputable journals provided not only good exposure for us, it allowed us to publish the full story from our research. I also made sure that my agency issued a press release describing both papers, which was picked up by a number of news outlets.
Maybe a single pub in Science or Nature might have gotten more mileage, but I was happy with this other outcome.
I'm in a field (ecology) in which it is not that easy to get papers into the GMs. So the expectation for this is probably somewhat less than for other fields. On the other hand, if you do have those GM pubs, you're considered to be "hot", and this effect will set you apart from the crowd.
For the second question, I aim for the journal that is the best fit for the work. If I think it's sufficiently newsworthy, I'll submit to a GM, but that's rare. Most are aimed at reputable, high-impact journals in my field. Some work, which is solid, but not earth-shaking is submitted to lower-level journals.
Unfortunately, administrators (at least mine) seem to know only about Science and Nature and that these are prestigious (some have never even heard of PNAS). So they are only impressed by publication in these GMs. They don't seem to realize that publication in good (but not necessarily top-tier) journals is respectable and does make a contribution to science.
biochem belle 43p · 786 weeks ago
Regarding administrators only being impressed by pubs in Science and Nature... Stop and think about it. Either journal only publishes 2 to 3 full articles and 10 to 12 letters/reports in each issue... covering every discipline of science. So for argument's sake, that's a total of ~1500 articles (~250 full, ~1200 short) per year. Multiply by the percentage that come from one's own field (which varies widely depending on the field). Advances in a given field of science certainly exceed the 30 or 50 papers that appear in these GMs.
essayontіme revіews · 520 weeks ago