Faculty of 1000

Posted: March 20, 2012 in Academia, Publishing

So my current postdoc adviser is a member of the Faculty of 1000 (F1000) and has asked me to become an associate faculty member (woohoo! Another line on the CV; isn’t it sad that this is the first thing that came to my mind when my adviser approached me about this. Oh science, what have you done to me? But I digress…). However, I had never heard of F1000 in graduate schol, and I haven’t heard anyone talking about it.

So my understanding of what the F1000 is supposed to do is highlight and/or identify articles of great interest for the science community at large. The goal being to help others identify articles they may want to read and winnow down the list of publications to slog through. It looks to be a part of the post-publication peer review movement. As a faculty member (or associate faculty member) you are supposed to scour a few journals, identify some papers of interest, then write up a few lines about why you think the paper is just grand, and then post it (or you can also critique/praise/trash; but no pseudonyms allowed, so be careful!). You can also comment on other papers etc. (kinda’ like PLoS One) although this doesn’t seem to be very common (again, kinda’ like PLoS One).

So does anyone actually use it (costs $10/month if you don’t have institutional access)? Has anyone ever heard of it? It’s been around for almost a decade already, but this is the first I’ve heard of it in my brief career.

But mostly, is this actually useful? I’ve still not yet formed an opinion on it, as I’ve yet to really sit down and see everything it has to offer, but was wondering if anyone else out there had experience with it. Nonetheless, I look forward to contributing to it…

 

Advertisements
Comments
  1. neuromusic says:

    I’m a grad student. I’ve heard of it, but I don’t use it. I appreciate that we need efforts to formalize and/or aggregate post-publication peer review and make the conversations that happen in journal clubs and at the pub more accessible to the entire community.

    But I have my reservations about F1000… namely that it is closed and that your voluntary (or salary supported), unpaid reviews are then “owned” by F1000, which then profits off of them.

    I appreciate this critique by Casey Bergman: http://caseybergman.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/goodbye-f1000-hello-faculty-of-a-million/

    • funkdoctorx says:

      Thanks for the comment and the link. It is certainly an interesting discussion that is going on with regards to open access and post-publication peer review.

      I agree, it does seem a bit odd that voluntary contributions are then owned by F1000; but faculty members do get free access to it (although I suppose most would have access to it via an institutional account, but I don’t know how many institutions actually have F1000 on their docket). It can also be seen as not a whole lot different than doing peer reviewing; you don’t get paid for that, but it’s part of being a professional. Perhaps post-publication peer-review should be seen as part of our professional obligations? Just a thought…

      • neuromusic says:

        I would argue that post-publication peer review is *already* part of our obligations… and it happens in journal clubs and lab meetings and at the pub. I appreciate efforts like F1000 and PaperCritic (and others that have launched and failed) to move the discussion into online media where there are paper trails and more can benefit than just the 4 people drinking a beer with me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s