{"id":73839,"date":"2022-05-26T05:00:37","date_gmt":"2022-05-26T09:00:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=73839"},"modified":"2022-05-25T12:05:52","modified_gmt":"2022-05-25T16:05:52","slug":"the-hierarchy-of-scientific-journals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2022\/05\/26\/the-hierarchy-of-scientific-journals\/","title":{"rendered":"The hierarchy of scientific journals"},"content":{"rendered":"

One of the readers of Scott Alexander’s Astral Codex Ten<\/em> has contributed a review of Melinda Baldwin’s Making Nature: The History of a Scientific Journal<\/em><\/a>. This is one of perhaps a dozen or so anonymous reviews that Scott publishes every year with the readers voting for the best review and the names of the contributors withheld until after the voting is finished:<\/p>\n

The world of scientific publishing is organized as a hierarchy of status, much like the hierarchy of angels in the Abrahamic religions. At the bottom are the non-peer-reviewed blog posts and Twitter threads. Slightly above are the preprint servers like arXiv<\/em>, and then big peer-reviewed journals like PLOS One<\/em>. Above those are all the field-specific journals, some with higher reputation than others. And at the top, near the divine presence, are the CNS journals: Cell<\/em>, Nature<\/em>, and Science<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Full title: The Assumption of the Virgin..Artist: Francesco Botticini..Date made: probably about 1475-6..<\/p><\/div>\n

For an actual hierarchy of journals based on citation data, see this paper<\/a>, which puts Nature<\/em> and Science<\/em> at the top. Might be worth mentioning that it comes from a journal in the Nature Publishing Group family.<\/p>\n

Leaving aside Cell<\/em>, a more specialized biology journal that seems to have gotten into the CNS acronym the same way Netflix got into the FAANG acronym, Nature<\/em> and Science<\/em> are very similar. They both publish articles in all scientific fields. They both date from the 19th century. They’re published weekly. They jointly won a fancy prize for services to humanity<\/a> in 2007. And having your paper in either is one of the best things that can happen to a scientist’s career, thanks to their immense prestige.<\/p>\n

But how, exactly, did Nature<\/em> and Science<\/em> become so prestigious? This is the question I hoped Making Nature: The History of a Scientific Journal<\/em>, a 2015 book by historian of science Melinda Baldwin, might answer. It focuses on Nature<\/em>, but much of its lessons can likely be extrapolated to Science<\/em> considering their similarity.<\/p>\n

I grew curious about this when I realized that most researchers treat journal prestige as a given. Everyone knows that Nature<\/em> and Science<\/em> matter enormously, yet few would be able to say why exactly. But this is important! Prestigious institutions, from universities to media companies to major sports competitions, have a huge impact on the world. It’s useful to understand how they came to be, beyond “being famous for being famous”.<\/p>\n

One reason this is more difficult than it sounds is that we often settle for superficial answers. Selectivity, for instance, is a common explanation: prestige simply comes from obtaining what is hard to obtain, such as a Harvard degree, an Olympic medal or a Nobel Prize. Nature<\/em> is indeed highly selective, accepting less than 10% of submitted articles (and the vast majority of papers are not even deemed worthy of a submission to Nature<\/em> by their authors). Yet harsh selectivity alone cannot explain prestige, or it would be trivial to launch a prestigious journal or university just by setting an artificially low acceptance rate. <\/p>\n

Another facile explanation is longevity. It’s true that prestigious institutions are often old, and indeed Nature<\/em> has been around for more than 150 years since its birth in 1869. Science<\/em> is only slightly younger, having been founded in 1880. But there are many older scientific journals: the oldest one, the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society<\/em>, was created two hundred years before Nature<\/em>, in 1665. Then there are more recent publications that are prestigious: Cell<\/em>, for instance, was founded in 1974. The correlation between prestige and longevity is real, but imperfect. It also says nothing of causation: does longevity cause prestige, or does prestige cause longevity? <\/p>\n

What matters is not the span of time per se<\/em>, but the specific events that happened \u2014 in other words, the history. Making Nature<\/em>, while not specifically about prestige, gives us exactly that. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

One of the readers of Scott Alexander’s Astral Codex Ten has contributed a review of Melinda Baldwin’s Making Nature: The History of a Scientific Journal. This is one of perhaps a dozen or so anonymous reviews that Scott publishes every year with the readers voting for the best review and the names of the contributors […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":35193,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[32,28,16],"tags":[86,477],"class_list":["post-73839","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-books","category-media","category-science","tag-criticism","tag-magazines"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/favicon.png","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-jcX","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73839","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=73839"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73839\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":73841,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73839\/revisions\/73841"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/35193"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73839"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73839"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}