Today, one of my favourite science (t)witterers, @enniscath, posed an intriguing question:
Is it normal to assign personalities to scientific journals? e.g. Curr Biol is an enthusiastic extrovert; Nucl Acid Res is dull but worthy
I think it’s a marvellous idea :)
I instantly proposed a thought…
@enniscath heh, and Journ Roy Soc Interface is the weird ‘artsy’ kid with the mohawk and pocket protector :P
And as for PLosONE, well! Images abound.
The question is an intriguing one, of course, especially as journals/the publishing industry increasingly have to justify their existence (and means of existence) to the scientific community.
So, what personalities would you ascribe to various journals?
And with that…SHOULD they have personalities?If so, what sort of personality is appropriate for a scientific journal?
Are they influenced by the journal’s editorial people, or the scientists who publish therein?
Will a journal’s personality help determine whether it survives or not? Should it?
UPDATE: Here’s Cath’s very own blog post on the subject
Other random awesome today includes:
Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.
And finally - where have I been recently? Why am I not blogging as often? Well, numerous projects, of course, but I’ve also gone (motor)bike mad :P And been finishing off our Mongol Rally blog from last year (which is almost done!!).