blog

As Richard promised, here’s the latest guest blog post from Nando, his confessions of an F1000 addict…

---

When I was invited to join F1000, I was very flattered of course. I knew about it, but I had no access to it. I have substantial experience in processing articles for journals; I even direct one (The Italian Journal of Zoology), but I hadn’t reviewed already published articles per se. I read scientific articles as part of my work, and evaluating them is very easy: I just put my thoughts in writing. I see it as a little vacation from my every day tasks.

After posting my first evaluation, I received a message from the editorial office of F1000 informing me that my review was listed in the Hidden Jewels! This led me to discover the Current Most Viewed section, which tells you if the public likes your evaluation. We are a social species, and we like the approval of our work, so to have written a “most viewed” evaluation is a sign of appreciation.

The first thing I do in the morning when I start my computer is to go to F1000 and check the status of my evaluations. Every time I post a review, I monitor its history. Getting in the Current Most Viewed in Ecology is nice, but it is even nicer to get in the Current Most Viewed in Biology or even in the Current Most Viewed of all time! My record is five evaluations in a single Ecology listing! I now have five evaluations in the Most Viewed of all time in Ecology and one in the Most Viewed of all time for all F1000.

Another thing I like about F1000 is Dissents. I would write more of them, but I do not want to give the impression that I am a troublemaker. High-impact journals tend to ask their authors for papers on “hot” topics. I used to be impressed, but then I started to really read these articles in depth, and I discovered that they sometimes sell metal that has been used and re-used several times as solid gold. One author labeled this practice as: “selling old wine in new bottles.”

For example: there are dozens of articles on Phylogenetic trees of the Metazoa built with molecular methods. Since there is only one tree that reflects metazoan evolution, it seems odd that new ones are sold as being based on solid evidence and invariably published in top journals. When I was asked for an opinion about these articles, I wrote: the article is surely interesting, but the authors should cite people like Darwin or Haeckel, because these things are in their work.

I really do not know if the users of F1000 read my evaluations because they like the way I write them, and what I write in them, or if they simply have similar interests and are attracted to the articles I like. If you have comments on these issues, I would love to hear from you. Dissents are particularly welcome: if we all agree there is nothing left to discuss, right?