Have the issues around scientific publishing changed over the past decade? As always, there's a drive to publish in what are considered the top journals. Funding, tenure and promotions depend heavily on the quality of a lab's research articles, which are in many cases determined by the very journal in which the studies are published. Moreover, most journals publish research articles behind a paywall barrier, limiting access to those who can pay, while maintaining rights to the content. Scientific publishing is, after all, a lucrative business employing many people who strive to improve the rigor of science, and provide the best dissemination platform for the most cutting edge of science. But does this system actually work to help improve the science, and does this in turn help address challenges in neuroscience?
See what former Neuron Editor-in-Chief Katja Brose, PhD, has to say about the challenges faced by neuroscientists. What role can publishing play in improving the reproducibility and longevity of each study in a field that's perhaps moving faster than any one individual can fully comprehend, especially when it comes to the massive amounts of data currently being generated. What do you think of the role scientific publishing plays in helping to improve science?