After reading the article above I was so shocked that somebody that high up in his field would speak out against the journals that helped get him there. I’m not saying that as a bad thing at all. I think it is extremely admirable that someone in his position would be so critical of the top journals. It also shows that his loyalty is to good science, and not to his own career or the top journals that once helped his career.
In terms of this class it’s refreshing to see a scientist at the top of his field do the right thing. As opposed to the couple of papers we read about scientists at the top of their receptive fields being guilty of serious misconduct.
I would also hope that this would help the cause for open access journals, or at least a new way of present scientific research. I thought his criticism of impact factors was interesting, that an article could be sited a lot not just because it contains good science, but simply because it is “eye-catching, provocative, or wrong.”
It was also nice to see that Schekman is passing down his attitude to his students, that do not want to work at institutions where all they care about is how many times you have published in a major journal. Maybe if enough people get this attitude it will inspire a change in how science is presented.
As we have spoke about in class though, are the alternatives (open access, public peer review) any better?