Comments on: Why you shouldn't publish in PNAS

By: jack brown

jack brown — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:34:45 +0000

“free reign” -> “free rein”; the metaphor is you’re riding a horse and you let the reins loose so the horse can do what it wants.

I agree that it’s really irritating having unnecessary delays in putting a paper on the site so we can actually read it, but I doubt it’s done to artificially pump up demand.

By: AK

AK — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:34:29 +0000

I believe PNAS, unlike Nature and Science, allow prepublication on the arxiv – if Erikkson and Manica wanted the paper online, they could put it online.

By: PeterC

PeterC — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:11:58 +0000

Well that lays to rest Premature News About Science

By: JeffH

JeffH — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:41:13 +0000

At the same time having all Supplemental files in a single file makes copying large tables hard. I’ve found myself having to email authors or scraping the PDF rather than a simple download.

By: Chad

Chad — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:27:16 +0000

I will give one plus about PNAS. They were one of the first Journals to give the option of a PDF + Supplemental Data download so you don’t have to 10 extra files in addition to the main paper to dig through. I’ve just now noticed a few other journals doing this. I know its not much, but its a feature I have always loved.

By: Chad

Chad — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:45:56 +0000

Its in the Early Edition, just out today:

Effect of ancient population structure on the degree of polymorphism shared between modern human populations and ancient hominins

Anders Eriksson and Andrea Manica

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/14/1200567109.abstract