Are there problems with the peer-review process?

The pathway to publication is littered with checkpoints, reviews, and rejections. Before your paper is accepted it is read and reviewed with a few possible fates. It can be desk rejected by the editor and never reviewed or it can reach the reviewers who then decide the fate of the manuscript.

questionamarkwebSiler et al. investigated the effectiveness of the review process. They observed that top ranking journals overall have a very effective desk screening process where the best manuscripts are selected for review. However, there was one main fault; these top tier journals desk rejected the top cited manuscripts. This is likely due to the fact that their goal is to publish papers that are widely applicable and of interest to many people. This limits the ability of truly novel and exciting works to be published in these formats.

Overall, however, it was determined that the review process is helpful. Manuscripts that went to review overall had more citations than those desk rejected and resubmitted elsewhere. The results of this study were reassuring, and it was nice to see that at least a few scientists are looking into the effectiveness of the review process.

Link to article:

About the author: Moriah Knight is a third year in the Johns Hopkins Department of Materials Science and Engineering working in Peter Searson’s lab.

Getting my hands dirty in NanoBio lab

As a second year graduate student, classes take up a non-insignificant part of my day. One of the classes that I had the opportunity to take last spring was NanoBio Laboratory. NanoBio lab is clearly a laboratory class, which is always very exciting for an engineer. I enjoy any opportunity to get my hands dirty and really learn some techniques. And that was exactly what we had the opportunity to do.

NanoBio Lab was our chance to go into many of the labs in The Institute for NanoBioTechnology (INBT) and get an idea of some of the techniques that they use and the general area of research of the lab. Some of the techniques that were demonstrated in this course included gold nanoparticles synthesis, transfecting cells with luciferase (the chemical that makes fireflies glow), and a novel method of analyzing images. While not all of the labs necessarily apply to the work that I am doing, many of them have some relevance and could come in handy in the future.

Through this lab, I have learned techniques that could be useful in my research in the future. Not only have I learned useful techniques, it was also an excellent chance to network within other labs. In this course, we had one or two representatives from many of the labs associated with the INBT instruct us and assist us in learning the techniques. This allowed us to form a relationship with at least one member in the represented labs, which will make it easier to reach out to other labs for help learning new procedures and protocols.

I just found out that I’m going to have to attempt to transfect a cell line, which I have never done outside of the NanoBio lab. Just as all laboratory work I know that it will be difficult, and that I’m likely to fail a number of times before I have any success. Through this class, however, I know someone who I can talk to for advice and assistance as I go through this process.

Moriah Knight is a second year PhD student in Peter Searson’s lab studying Materials Science and Engineering.