Spoken word recognition requires complex, invariant representations. Using a meta-analytic approach incorporating more than 100 functional imaging experiments, we show that preference for complex sounds emerges in the human auditory ventral stream in a hierarchical fashion, consistent with nonhuman primate electrophysiology. Instant formatting template for Proceedings of the National Academy of. Reports, commentaries, perspectives, and colloquium papers.
![]()
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Feb 26; 105(8): 2755–2756.
Published online 2008 Feb 1. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800528105
After publishing 21,000 pages of high-impact research articles in 2007, PNAS continues full steam ahead. Although other journals have given rise to incrementally more specialized research and review journals, we have kept the mission of PNAS to serve science as the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences, with its associated breadth and depth, close to heart. With a competitive impact factor of 9.6 and a 19% acceptance rate for papers submitted directly, PNAS remains one of the most prestigious and highly cited multidisciplinary research journals. Never content to rest on our laurels, we are continually searching for ways to improve and advance PNAS with new features and services.
Survey Says
Results from a survey of PNAS authors (347 respondents) indicate that 87% are satisfied with the online manuscript submission process, 86% are satisfied with the peer review process, 86% are satisfied with the copyediting, and 91% are satisfied with the overall production process. We are reviewing the comments carefully to see how we can bring author satisfaction closer to 100%.
Two major areas that we have begun to improve are typesetting math, equations, and special characters (67% of respondents are satisfied with this function) and the character count and manuscript-sizing process (62% are satisfied). We have a new workflow for math-heavy papers that enables us to edit and compose the author's originally supplied TeX file without having to rekey text or equations. We are also developing an easy-to-use manuscript submission template, which should be available this summer, to provide a simpler and more accurate estimate of article length.
Get Featured
To ease the page-limit burden and to attract exceptional articles, we have launched Feature Articles (www.pnas.org/cgi/collection/feature_articles), in-depth research reports with exceptional breadth. Feature Article submissions are handled personally by the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor and receive our usual prompt, rigorous, and fair peer review. Given the importance we place on such articles, the six-page limit is waived, and publicity includes a Commentary and, as appropriate, a press release. Feature Articles highlight truly innovative work of exceptional significance. We encourage you to submit your next such paper for consideration.
Letters Welcome![]()
To foster discussion and debate about recently published PNAS articles, we have also launched a new series of Letters to the Editor (www.pnas.org/cgi/collection/letters). Published online only, letters are brief comments (250 words) that contribute to the discussion of a PNAS research article published within the last 3 months. The author of the paper being discussed is sent a copy of the letter and allowed to prepare a response. We hope that letters will clarify and amplify research published in PNAS.
Cited Titles
To make our reference lists more informative, the titles of cited articles are now included (see www.pnas.org/misc/iforc.shtml#format). We have made some minor changes to the page format to help accommodate this mandatory change, because the limit for standard research articles remains six pages. Cited articles are still just a click away online.
Fewer Clicks
Another way to ease the page-limit burden is online-only supporting information (SI). More than 72% of our research articles contain SI, which includes nearly 14,000 files each year of images, datasets, expanded materials and methods, movies, etc. Beginning in February, we will prepare an integrated PDF that contains all SI items so that 15 figures no longer require 15 clicks or more to be viewed.
By summer, we hope to ensure that referees receive a similar integrated PDF for SI so they can also access the files with fewer clicks. At PNAS, we copyedit, format, peer review, and permanently archive all SI. Therefore, between review and publication, the copy editors must access the original files to make edits and to size figures.
Honest Images
Including SI, PNAS publishes 24,000 figures each year. Our policies on digital image manipulation are stated in our Information for Authors:
No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced. The grouping or consolidation of images from multiple sources must be made explicit by the arrangement of the figure and in the text of the figure legend. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if they are applied to the whole image and as long as they do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information present in the original, including backgrounds.
To enforce this policy we have begun screening our images with a software program that can detect traces of manipulation such as cloning and pasting, adjustments to contrast that may obscure data, and areas with inconsistent background pixelation. We expect that the majority of findings of inconsistencies will be the result of an author cleaning up an image rather than a deliberate attempt to obscure or misrepresent data. In many cases, we will simply ask the authors to prepare a figure that adheres to our policy.
What should you do? To avoid delaying your manuscript in production, please read our policy carefully. Do not delete background noise in your gels. Do not create a composite without clearly indicating it as such. Do not use Photoshop tools such as the healing brush or the blur tool to cover up distracting bits in a time-series image of cells.
What if the changes appear to be more than just cleaning up an image? Our policy spells that out, too:
Questions about images raised during review will be referred to the editors, who may request the original data from the authors for comparison with the prepared figures. If the original data cannot be produced, the manuscript may be rejected. Cases of deliberate misrepresentation of data will result in rejection of the paper and will be reported to the corresponding author's home institution or funding agency.
We expect cases of deliberate misrepresentation to be extremely rare, but we are prepared to deal with them promptly and with due process.
Conflicted?
Another area of editorial policy that we have reinforced is conflict of interest (see www.pnas.org/misc/iforc.shtml#policies and www.pnas.org/misc/coi.shtml). In addition to our requirement that authors, members, referees, and editors must disclose any association that poses a conflict of interest in connection with a manuscript, we now ask editors to follow National Science Foundation guidelines (www.nsf.gov/attachments/108276/public/Conflict_of_Interest_Information.pdf) to avoid conflict of interest between referees and authors. We also stipulate that recent collaborators, people who have coauthored a paper with the author or member within the past 48 months, be excluded as referees.
Strength in Numbers
PNAS publishes 21,000 pages per year and receives more than 12,000 submissions, 88% of which are submitted directly to the journal instead of communicated or contributed by an Academy member. PNAS maintains highly competitive turn times of 18 days (median) to first decision and 38 days (median) to decision for papers that undergo full review. We realize that we can do even better, and we have enlisted the aid of our six Associate Editors (William C. Clark, Alan Fersht, Jack Halpern, Jeremy A. Sabloff, Solomon H. Snyder, and Susan R. Wessler) to help us bring outliers back on track. Our 152-member-strong Editorial Board keeps submissions moving smoothly through our editorial process.
All papers in PNAS have the seal of approval of a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and all of our Editorial Board members and Associate Editors are also Academy members. Of course, some papers fall outside the immediate expertise of the Academy's 2,100 members and 350 foreign associates. On occasion, we request nonmember Guest Editors to handle the review of a directly submitted paper, and the final decision is approved by an Editorial Board member.
Whereas other, slimmer journals have slashed acceptance rates down to the single digits, PNAS has kept its standards high but its doors open to interesting, important research in the top 10% of its field. Our editors want to avoid imposing artificial or capricious constraints on research that is determined in peer review to be sound and novel. With the ever-increasing number of submissions, the size of PNAS continues to grow each year.
Keeping Pace
With online Table of Contents and Research Profile alerts (www.pnas.org/cgi/alerts/etoc), keeping track of papers of interest is easier than ever. You can also save articles and searches in My File Cabinet and download citations to your reference manager of choice. And, if you use CiteULike, Complore, Connotea, Del.icio.us, or Digg, we hope you are pleased that we have added social bookmarking tools online.
Social bookmarking allows you to save and categorize your personal collection of bookmarks and share them with others. You can also add bookmarks saved by others to your own collection, as well as subscribe to the lists of others—it's a personal knowledge management tool. Other useful tools include the Figures Only view and the ability to download a figure as a PowerPoint slide at the click of a button.
Future Directions
Returning to our author survey results, we also inquired about ways to leverage online publication, as the PNAS web site garners more than 3 million hits per week, far outpacing our print circulation. We asked how likely authors would be to use an option to publish a longer (62,000 vs. 47,000 characters) paper online with only the abstract in print. The results were interesting: 49% said they would be likely to use this option, 16% were neutral, and 35% would be unlikely to use it. We will keep this option open for future experimentation.
Taking this issue one step further, we asked how satisfied authors would be if we eliminated the PNAS print edition entirely. The results were somewhat surprising given how many researchers worldwide say they never see the print edition of PNAS: 29% of respondents indicated they would be satisfied if we eliminated print, 33% were neutral, and 38% would be dissatisfied. Perhaps these figures are less surprising given that 37% of the institutions that subscribe to PNAS purchase only the print edition.
Our liberal free-content policies make striking a balance between securing annual operating revenue and maximizing dissemination of our content challenging. All PNAS content back to 1915 is free online 6 months after publication and is immediately free in more than 140 developing countries. Some content such as SI and colloquia are always immediately free, and 22% of our research articles are free immediately through our open access option. However, PNAS is a breakeven operation that relies on two main sources of operating revenue, author publication fees and subscriptions, mainly from institutions. Driven by budget cuts and space limitations, institutions continue to cancel print subscriptions. And, as more PNAS content becomes free each year, institutions evaluate their need to pay for online access. Each year we must evaluate our author and subscriber pricing policies to ensure we have struck a balance that can fund our publishing operations.
When survey respondents were asked which research discipline they published under in PNAS, 85% said biological sciences, 7% physical sciences, 5% social sciences, 5% dual classification in the physical and biological sciences, and 1% dual classification in the social and biological sciences. These results mirror our slow but steady progress in recruiting papers in the nonbiological sciences. PNAS editors are committed to recruiting outstanding papers in fields that have been scarce in PNAS in recent years, such as chemistry, sustainability science, anthropology, mathematics, and physics. As the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences, a major goal is for PNAS to represent the many disciplines of the Academy.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge the dedication and service of the PNAS staff, the Editorial Board, and our many reviewers, without whom this enterprise would not thrive. In my year-plus service as Editor-in-Chief, I have had many constructive conversations (and, of course, a few not so pleasant) with authors and readers who value PNAS because of its breadth of coverage and reliance on scientific leaders to make editorial decisions. My goal is to bring new authors into the fold while continuing to encourage the submission of the finest work of more established investigators in all areas of science. If you have suggestions about how we can improve PNAS, or if you feel strongly about anything mentioned in this editorial, I hope you will let me know at ude.san@sanp.
Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences
![]() Comments are closed.
|
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2022
Categories |