For those not familiar, Shekman is boycotting the big science journals because he believes they distort the scientific process.
I think it’s a very interesting move that should draw attention to the risks of only swinging for home runs in science, instead of rewarding researchers for doing smaller, less revolutionary work that may often (but not always) be better science, in terms of being reproducible and widely applicable. When you tell someone that they have to publish in Science or Nature to get tenure, then you run the risk of them going to Lance Armstrong-level lengths of rule-bending to do so. That kind of dishonesty doesn’t happen much in science, but it does happen.
Take China, where a researcher can get a $30,000 bonus for getting into one of the big journals. On one hand it’s a helluva reward, but on the other hand it’s could be called a fancy bribe that puts a lot of really dangerous incentives in place.
But Science and Nature and the like still publish great, groundbreaking science. They are consistently the best journals not because they force people to cheat or cut corners, but because they’ve spent a century or more building that reputation (plus they got in the game early and secured the best names, like Science and Nature).
But what if young professors, with all their options open, published 10 smaller papers rather than spending six years on one submission to Nature that is going to make or break their whole career? I think we’d be better off then.
I have to say, none of this “what if” stuff matters until universities start rewarding researchers differently. This is why your professors have gray hair. And it’s easy for a guy with a Nobel prize to start a boycott … he’s already won the game!