A biology journal that can teach physicists a lesson in peer review

Raymond E. Goldstein

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.3378

2016-12-01

Abstract:This is a Commentary in $Physics~Today$ on the novel review process developed by the biology journal $eLife$, with the suggestion that it be adopted by physics journals.

Physics and Society,Digital Libraries,Cell Behavior

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Where physics and biology meet

Wallace Marshall,Buzz Baum,Adrienne Fairhall,Carl-Philipp Heisenberg,Elena Koslover,Andrea Liu,Yanlan Mao,Alex Mogilner,Celeste M. Nelson,Ewa K. Paluch,Xavier Trepat,Alpha Yap

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.08.022

IF: 9.2

2024-10-22

Current Biology

Abstract:As part of this special issue on physics and biology, we invited several leading experts that bridge these disciplines to provide their views on the reciprocal contributions of each field and the benefits and challenges of working across physics and biology: introduction provided by Wallace Marshall.

cell biology,biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
Preprint Peer Review Enhances Undergraduate Biology Students' Disciplinary Literacy and Sense of Belonging in STEM

Josie L Otto,Gary S McDowell,Meena M Balgopal,Rebeccah S Lijek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00053-23

2023-06-14

Abstract:Education about scientific publishing and manuscript peer review is not universally provided in undergraduate science courses. Since peer review is integral to the scientific process and central to the identity of a scientist, we envision a paradigm shift where teaching peer review becomes integral to undergraduate science education. We hypothesize that teaching undergraduates how to peer review scientific manuscripts may facilitate their development of scientific literacy and identity formation. To this end, we developed a constructivist, service-learning curriculum for biology undergraduates to learn about the mechanisms of peer review using preprints and then to write and publish their own peer reviews of preprints as a way to authentically join the scientific community of practice. The curriculum was implemented as a semester-long intervention in one class and, in another class, as an embedded module intervention. Students' scientific literacy and peer review ability were assessed using quantitative methods. Student's perceptions of their scientific literacy and identity were assessed using thematic analysis of students' reflective writing. Here, we present data on the improvement in the peer review ability of undergraduates in both classes and data on the curriculum's interrelated impact on students' development of scientific literacy, identity, and belonging in peer and professional discourse spaces. These data suggest that undergraduates can and should be trained in peer review to foster the interrelated development of their scientific literacy, scientific identity, and sense of belonging in science.
De- and Re-constructing Introductory Physics for the Life Sciences

Dawn C. Meredith,Edward F. Redish

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1304.1895

2013-04-06

Abstract:Teaching physics to biologists requires far more than making the course for engineers mathematically less rigorous and adding in a few superficial biological problems. What is needed is for physicists to work closely with biologists to learn not only what physics topics and habits of mind that are useful to biologists, but how biologists work is fundamentally different from ours, and how to bridge that gap. In this article, we discussed what we have learned about these issues from years of conversations with colleagues in biology.

Physics Education
A Primer: Peer Review Process for Advances in Physiology Education

Thad E Wilson,Lisa M Harrison-Bernard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00127.2024

2024-09-05

Abstract:The dissemination of discipline-focused educational scholarship advances theory and stimulates pedagogical application. The aim of Advances in Physiology Education is to publish manuscripts that advance knowledge and inform educators in the field. This primer is tailored for individuals new to manuscript reviewing, early in their careers, or experienced in reviewing research but not educational manuscripts. Peer reviewing for basic and applied science is akin to evaluating research questions and rigor in teaching and learning studies, with differences in approach and analysis similar to those between biophysics and molecular physiology or cell and integrated physiology. Our purpose is to provide an overview of the review process and expectations. The submission and peer review process involves several steps: authors submit a manuscript, the Editor assigns an Associate Editor, who then assigns peer Reviewers. Reviewers are contacted via email and can accept or decline the invitation. Reviewers evaluate the work's strengths and weaknesses, then independently submit comments and recommendations to the Associate Editor. After review, the Associate Editor collects and weighs Reviewers' comments, sometimes garners additional reviews and input, to make a recommendation to the Editor. The Editor reviews the process, comments, and recommendations to render a final decision. Both authors and Reviewers receive an email with the decision. The editorial staff assist with communication and help track the overall process. Peer review is integral to scientific publishing, ensuring quality and rigor, and reviewing is both a privilege and a responsibility of all in the scientific community.
arXiv and the Symbiosis of Physics Preprints and Journal Review Articles

Brian Simboli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1904.01470

2019-05-21

Abstract:New thinking needs to emerge about how to reform publishing along lines that best meet two perennial needs of scientific communication. This paper discusses a model that addresses these two needs with respect to physics. Given the considerable barriers that its realization in pristine form faces, the model aspires merely to be a heuristic or guidepost. It provides an analytical framework for criticizing aspects of the current publishing ecosystem, helps diagnose problems in current efforts to reform it, including those emanating from the open access movement, and raises consciousness about certain emphases that could gradually enrich scholarly publishing. [VERSION 2 , 5/19/2019; SUCCESSIVE REVISIONS WILL OCCUR THROUGHOUT 2019.]

Digital Libraries,Physics and Society
Physical Biology : challenges for our second decade

Herbert Levine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1478-3975/11/3/030201

Abstract:It is quite an honor to be asked to become the third editor-in-chief of Physical Biology . I am following in the footsteps of Tim Newman, who served with energy and enthusiasm. Hopefully, the entire community fully appreciates his contributions to moving the field forward. Thank you, Tim! With the honor, however, goes a clear responsibility. Our journal has survived its birth pangs and emerged as a serious venue for publishing quality research papers using physical science to address the workings of living matter. With the support of scientists in this field and with the ongoing commitment of the IOP, we have successfully reached adolescence. Yet, there is clearly much room to grow and there are clear challenges in defining and maintaining our special niche in the publishing landscape. In this still-developing state, the journal very much mimics the state of the field of physical biology itself. Few scientists continue to question the relevance of physical science for the investigation of the living world. But, will our new perspective and the methods that come with it really lead to radically new principles of how life works? Or, will breakthroughs continue to come from experimental biology (perhaps aided by the traditional physicist-as-tool-builder paradigm), leaving us to put quantitative touches on established fundamentals? In thinking about these questions for the field and for the journal, I have tried to understand what is really unique about our joint endeavors. I have become convinced that living matter represents a new challenge to our physical-science based conceptual framework. Not only is it far from equilibrium, as has been generally recognized, but it violates our simple notions of the separability of constituents, their interactions and the resulting large-scale behavior. Unlike, say, atomic physicists who can do productive research while safely ignoring the latest developments in QCD (let alone particle physics at higher energies), we do not yet understand when the details of proteins and nucleic acids structure and function can be assumed constant when considering the cell. This problem is even more serious as we try to set higher sights and think of cells as constituents of tissue, organ and organism. Trying to understand higher-order biological systems is a bit like trying to play a board game where the pieces and rules are constantly changing, somehow in concert with what is happening at the scale of the game. Others will undoubtedly have their own view of what is really difficult and different about living systems. One of the roles of Physical Biology should therefore be to provide a needed forum to address some of these really difficult questions. Of course, most papers will operate with the safety-setting on, and will use established ideas in physics, either experimental or theoretical, to further our quantitative appreciation of living systems. These papers are without doubt an absolutely necessary part of the field, and we hope that our journal can serve as a home for the best of these. But, my real hope is that we can attract papers that really try to break new ground, that suggest ways in which the living world is not just an extremely messy example of the same phenomena that can be studied in non-biological contexts. Amazingly, this hope is actually shared by many leading biologists. In one of the most influential papers on cancer research in the past decades. Hanahan and Weinberg argue that 'one day, we imagine that cancer biology and treatment-at present, a patchwork quilt of cell biology, genetics, histopathology, biochemistry, immunology, and pharmacology-will become a science with a conceptual structure and logical coherence that rivals that of chemistry or physics.' We should take up the challenge, not just for cancer, and Physical Biology should help. Figuring out exactly how best to do this is now my responsibility, and I look forward to hearing from you and working with all of you, in order to make it happen.
How and why eLife selects papers for peer review

eLife Editorial Leadership,eLife Senior Editors,eLife Early Career Advisory Group,Timothy E Behrens,Yamini Dalal,Diane M Harper,Detlef Weigel,Olujimi A Ajijola,Amy H Andreotti,Sofia J Araújo,Utpal Banerjee,Balram Bhargava,Yanchao Bi,Christian Büchel,Felix Campelo,Albert Cardona,Kathryn Cheah,Lu Chen,Murim Choi,Laura Colgin,Jonathan A Cooper,Qiang Cui,Floris de Lange,Claude Desplan,Volker Dötsch,Wafik S El-Deiry,Eduardo Franco,Michael J Frank,Wendy S Garrett,Joshua I Gold,Silke Hauf,Christopher L-H Huang,John Huguenard,David E James,Bavesh Kana,Pankaj Kapahi,Andrew J King,Jürgen Kleine-Vehn,Benoît Kornmann,Caigang Liu,Huan Luo,Merritt Maduke,Tamar Makin,André F Marquand,Adèle L Marston,Pramod Mistry,Alan Moses,Sacha B Nelson,Tony Ng,Päivi Ojala,George H Perry,Panayiota Poirazi,Lynne-Marie Postovit,Sohini Ramachandran,Sergio Rasmann,Satyajit Rath,Jonathan Roiser,David Ron,Carla V Rothlin,John W Schoggins,Meredith C Schuman,Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham,Dolores Shoback,Lois Smith,Dominique Soldati-Favre,Didier Stainier,Lori Sussel,Kenton J Swartz,Michael Taffe,Tadatsugu Taniguchi,K VijayRaghavan,Aleksandra Walczak,Kate Wassum,Richard M White,Ma-Li Wong,Wei Yan,Tony Yuen,Mayank Chugh,Laura Han,Sarah Marei,Regina Mencia,Divyansh Mittal,Elizabeth Ochola,Facundo Romani,Lynn Yap

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.100571

IF: 7.7

2024-07-23

eLife

Abstract:When deciding which submissions should be peer reviewed, eLife editors consider whether they will be able to find high-quality reviewers, and whether the reviews will be valuable to the scientific community.
Bright and dynamic, constantly updated and enhanced online.?

T Hunt

Abstract:Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology Nature Publishing Group (2000). ISSN 1471-0072. Monthly First there was Annual Reviews, then came the monthly Elsevier Trends Journals, both of which try to identify hot topics in their chosen fields. The Current Opinion journals followed several years later, and Current Opinion in Cell Biology is presently one of the highest 'impact factor' review journals, with a distinguished board of editors and advisors and a systematic approach to regular coverage of the major fields of cell biology. Important topics are visited once a year, whether or not something specially exciting happened in the last 12 months. Add to this list Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology, the FASEB journal and the countless minireviews in 'real' journals, and you begin to wonder how anyone finds any time for doing experiments, or indeed reading the primary literature. So, into this already crowded field arrive three important newcomers: Nature Reviews in Molecular Cell Biology, Genetics, and Neurosciences, of which the first two will probably interest readers of Journal of Cell Science the most. Backed by the name and money of Nature and edited by experienced Nature staff, it is hard to see how these publications can possibly do other than succeed with writers and readers alike. What's inside the first issue? The cover of Nature Reviews in Molecular Cell Biology presents a 3-colour montage of a blue cell nucleus surrounded by splotches of green GPI-anchored GFP overlaid by orange actin stress fibres that seem to come from somewhere else. This image trails a comprehensive review from Kai Simons and Derek Toomre about Lipid Rafts. There are another five major review articles: calcium puffs and sparks, rings around DNA, HIV inhibitors, kinesin and the circadian clock provide a rich and varied mix of topics from authors who know what they're talking about. Surrounding this core is an entertaining mixture of 'highlights' at the front: news and views about a well-chosen selection of recent articles in the primary literature written by the three editors. These struck me as striking slightly too jokey a style. It is a terrible temptation and mistake in this kind of piece, I think, to equate lightheartedness with clarity. The sugar coating is more likely to irritate than enlighten. I would also question the wisdom, if it is indeed a policy, of only allowing editors to write in this section. I'm all for experienced writers writing, but I think I would prefer the variety of voice and authority evinced by the parental Nature News and Views. After the main reviews comes a section entitled 'perspectives', which include a 'Timeline' piece on Hayflick and his limit by Jerry Shay and Woodring Wright that I very much enjoyed, and a review (or Opinion) about cancer from Judah Folkman, Philip Hahnfeldt and Lynn Hlatky. In their own words, "the impetus for this Opinion article centres on the increasing awareness of the heterogeneity and instability of the cancer genome [. I]t is possible that suppressing this degenerative process may itself comprise an alternative constraint-based paradigm." The authors' fondness for portentous phrases of this kind rather spoiled their discussion for me. I also had trouble with an article on molecular computing. PCR reactions can solve the travelling salesman problem, it seems, but extremely slowly compared to a proper computer. The magazine has a nice heft to it, and is attractively designed and presented in glossy colour, although the main font is small enough to make reading difficult for your middle-aged reviewer in a particularly heavily overcast and rainy week in London. A first issue is supposed to be a kind of showcase, but if they can keep this up, the editors will surely have a success on their hands and you will probably be obliged to take out a personal subscription (£85), or persuade your library to part with £565. That's slightly cheaper than TiBS and a lot cheaper than Current Opinion in Cell Biology, both of which will have to run faster if they want to stay in the same place.
Life is physics: evolution as a collective phenomenon far from equilibrium

Nigel Goldenfeld,Carl Woese

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-062910-140509

2010-11-18

Abstract:Evolution is the fundamental physical process that gives rise to biological phenomena. Yet it is widely treated as a subset of population genetics, and thus its scope is artificially limited. As a result, the key issues of how rapidly evolution occurs, and its coupling to ecology have not been satisfactorily addressed and formulated. The lack of widespread appreciation for, and understanding of, the evolutionary process has arguably retarded the development of biology as a science, with disastrous consequences for its applications to medicine, ecology and the global environment. This review focuses on evolution as a problem in non-equilibrium statistical mechanics, where the key dynamical modes are collective, as evidenced by the plethora of mobile genetic elements whose role in shaping evolution has been revealed by modern genomic surveys. We discuss how condensed matter physics concepts might provide a useful perspective in evolutionary biology, the conceptual failings of the modern evolutionary synthesis, the open-ended growth of complexity, and the quintessentially self-referential nature of evolutionary dynamics.

Populations and Evolution,Statistical Mechanics
How can we improve problem-solving in undergraduate biology? Applying lessons from 30 years of physics education research

Anne-Marie Hoskinson,Marcos D. Caballero,Jennifer K. Knight

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1209.0745

2013-02-25

Abstract:If students are to successfully grapple with authentic, complex biological problems as scientists and citizens, they need practice solving such problems during their undergraduate years. Physics education researchers have investigated student problem solving for the last three decades. Although physics and biology problems differ in structure and content, the instructional purposes align closely: explaining patterns and processes in the natural world and making predictions about physical and biological systems. In this paper, we discuss how research-supported approaches developed by physics education researchers can be adopted by biologists to enhance student problem-solving skills. First, we compare the problems that biology students are typically asked to solve with authentic, complex problems. We then describe the development of research-validated physics curricula emphasizing process skills in problem solving. We show that solving authentic, complex biology problems requires many of the same skills that practicing physicists and biologists use in representing problems, seeking relationships, making predictions, and verifying or checking solutions. We assert that acquiring these skills can help biology students become competent problem solvers. Finally, we propose how biology scholars can apply lessons from physics education in their classrooms and inspire new studies in biology education research. (To appear in Cell Biology Education - Life Sciences Education)

Physics Education,Other Quantitative Biology
Essay: Exploring the Physics of Basic Medical Research

Vahid Sandoghdar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.132.090001

IF: 8.6

2024-02-27

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:The 20th century witnessed the emergence of many paradigm-shifting technologies from the physics community, which have revolutionized medical diagnostics and patient care. However, fundamental medical research has been mostly guided by methods from areas such as cell biology, biochemistry, and genetics, with fairly small contributions from physicists. In this Essay, I outline some key phenomena in the human body that are based on physical principles and yet govern our health over a vast range of length and time scales. I advocate that research in life sciences can greatly benefit from the methodology, know-how, and mindset of the physics community and that the pursuit of basic research in medicine is compatible with the mission of physics. Part of a series of Essays that concisely present author visions for the future of their field . https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.090001 Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI. Open access publication funded by the Max Planck Society. Published by the American Physical Society

physics, multidisciplinary
Challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review

Nihar B. Shah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3528086

IF: 22.7

2022-05-20

Communications of the ACM

Abstract:Improving the peer review process in a scientific manner shows promise.

computer science, theory & methods, software engineering, hardware & architecture
Toward better physics labs for future biologists

K. Moore,J. Giannini,W. Losert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4870388

IF: 0.835

2014-05-01

American Journal of Physics

Abstract:We have developed a set of laboratories and hands on activities to accompany a new two-semester interdisciplinary physics course that has been developed and tested in two small test classes at the University of Maryland, College Park (UMD) in 2012–2013. We have designed the laboratories to be taken accompanying a reformed course in the student's second year, with calculus, biology, and chemistry as prerequisites. These prerequisites permit the laboratories to include significant content on physics relevant to cellular scales, from chemical interactions to random motion and charge screening in fluids. We also introduce students to research-grade equipment and modern physics analysis tools in contexts relevant to biology while maintaining the pedagogically valuable open-ended laboratory structure of reformed laboratories. Preliminary student response results from these two classes are discussed.
NEXUS/Physics: An interdisciplinary repurposing of physics for biologists

E. F. Redish,C. Bauer,K. L. Carleton,T. J. Cooke,M. Cooper,C. H. Crouch,B. W. Dreyfus,B. D. Geller,J. Giannini,J. S. Gouvea,M. W. Klymkowsky,W. Losert,K. Moore,J. Presson,V. Sawtelle,K. V. Thompson,C. Turpen,R. K. P. Zia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4870386

IF: 0.835

2014-05-01

American Journal of Physics

Abstract:In response to increasing calls for the reform of the undergraduate science curriculum for life science majors and pre-medical students (Bio2010, Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians, Vision & Change), an interdisciplinary team has created NEXUS/Physics: a repurposing of an introductory physics curriculum for the life sciences. The curriculum interacts strongly and supportively with introductory biology and chemistry courses taken by life-science students, with the goal of helping students build general, multi-discipline scientific competencies. NEXUS/Physics stresses interdisciplinary examples and the content differs markedly from traditional introductory physics to facilitate this: it extends the discussion of energy to include interatomic potentials and chemical reactions, the discussion of thermodynamics to include enthalpy and Gibbs free energy and includes a serious discussion of random vs coherent motion including diffusion. The development of instructional materials is coordinated with careful education research. Both the new content and the results of the research are described in a series of papers for which this paper serves as an overview and context.

physics, multidisciplinary,education, scientific disciplines
Nature's loss, Immunologists gain?

V Aluvihare V

Abstract:Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology Nature Publishing Group (2000). ISSN 1471-0072. Monthly First there was Annual Reviews, then came the monthly Elsevier Trends Journals, both of which try to identify hot topics in their chosen fields. The Current Opinion journals followed several years later, and Current Opinion in Cell Biology is presently one of the highest 'impact factor' review journals, with a distinguished board of editors and advisors and a systematic approach to regular coverage of the major fields of cell biology. Important topics are visited once a year, whether or not something specially exciting happened in the last 12 months. Add to this list Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology, the FASEB journal and the countless minireviews in 'real' journals, and you begin to wonder how anyone finds any time for doing experiments, or indeed reading the primary literature. So, into this already crowded field arrive three important newcomers: Nature Reviews in Molecular Cell Biology, Genetics, and Neurosciences, of which the first two will probably interest readers of Journal of Cell Science the most. Backed by the name and money of Nature and edited by experienced Nature staff, it is hard to see how these publications can possibly do other than succeed with writers and readers alike. What's inside the first issue? The cover of Nature Reviews in Molecular Cell Biology presents a 3-colour montage of a blue cell nucleus surrounded by splotches of green GPI-anchored GFP overlaid by orange actin stress fibres that seem to come from somewhere else. This image trails a comprehensive review from Kai Simons and Derek Toomre about Lipid Rafts. There are another five major review articles: calcium puffs and sparks, rings around DNA, HIV inhibitors, kinesin and the circadian clock provide a rich and varied mix of topics from authors who know what they're talking about. Surrounding this core is an entertaining mixture of 'highlights' at the front: news and views about a well-chosen selection of recent articles in the primary literature written by the three editors. These struck me as striking slightly too jokey a style. It is a terrible temptation and mistake in this kind of piece, I think, to equate lightheartedness with clarity. The sugar coating is more likely to irritate than enlighten. I would also question the wisdom, if it is indeed a policy, of only allowing editors to write in this section. I'm all for experienced writers writing, but I think I would prefer the variety of voice and authority evinced by the parental Nature News and Views. After the main reviews comes a section entitled 'perspectives', which include a 'Timeline' piece on Hayflick and his limit by Jerry Shay and Woodring Wright that I very much enjoyed, and a review (or Opinion) about cancer from Judah Folkman, Philip Hahnfeldt and Lynn Hlatky. In their own words, "the impetus for this Opinion article centres on the increasing awareness of the heterogeneity and instability of the cancer genome [. I]t is possible that suppressing this degenerative process may itself comprise an alternative constraint-based paradigm." The authors' fondness for portentous phrases of this kind rather spoiled their discussion for me. I also had trouble with an article on molecular computing. PCR reactions can solve the travelling salesman problem, it seems, but extremely slowly compared to a proper computer. The magazine has a nice heft to it, and is attractively designed and presented in glossy colour, although the main font is small enough to make reading difficult for your middle-aged reviewer in a particularly heavily overcast and rainy week in London. A first issue is supposed to be a kind of showcase, but if they can keep this up, the editors will surely have a success on their hands and you will probably be obliged to take out a personal subscription (£85), or persuade your library to part with £565. That's slightly cheaper than TiBS and a lot cheaper than Current Opinion in Cell Biology, both of which will have to run faster if they want to stay in the same place.
Pioneering research has a new home in a trusted place

David Gevaux

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ad543a

2024-06-21

Reports on Progress in Physics

Abstract:After 90 years of publishing authoritative reviews, Reports on Progress in Physics is today publishing its first primary research papers. The beginning, we hope, of the journal's evolution into a showcase of the most impactful, ground-breaking and just fascinating physical-science research; a journal that builds trust through rigorous peer review and gives back to the communities we serve. Investing 100% of our funds back into science, we are committed to achieving all of this on a not-for-profit basis that puts science and scientists first.

physics, multidisciplinary
A focused assignment encouraging deep reading in undergraduate biochemistry

Bryan D Spiegelberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20744

Abstract:Encouraging undergraduate students to access, read, and analyze current primary literature can positively impact learning, especially in advanced courses. The incorporation of literature into coursework typically involves reading and responding to full research reports. Such exercises have clear value as students make connections between experiments and are able to probe and critique scientific logic. The exclusive use of full papers, though, may reinforce certain students' tendencies to rely on textual clues rather than a critical analysis of the actual data presented. I propose that structured activities requiring students to focus on individual parts of research papers, even on a single figure, are beneficial in a literature-centered advanced undergraduate course, because they promote the deep reading that is critical to scientific discourse. In addition, I describe how one such focused assignment boosted learning and was well received by students in a second-semester biochemistry course.
“Reproducible” Research in Mathematical Sciences Requires Changes in our Peer Review Culture and Modernization of our Current Publication Approach

Santiago Schnell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-018-0500-9

2018-09-19

Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

Abstract:The nature of scientific research in mathematical and computational biology allows editors and reviewers to evaluate the findings of a scientific paper. Replication of a research study should be the minimum standard for judging its scientific claims and considering it for publication. This requires changes in the current peer review practice and a strict adoption of a replication policy similar to those adopted in experimental fields such as organic synthesis. In the future, the culture of replication can be easily adopted by publishing papers through dynamic computational notebooks combining formatted text, equations, computer algebra and computer code.

mathematical & computational biology,biology
The case for biophysics super-groups in physics departments

Bart W. Hoogenboom,Mark C. Leake

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1478-3975/aaca0a

2018-04-25

Abstract:Increasing numbers of physicists engage in research activities that address biological questions from physics perspectives or strive to develop physics insights from active biological processes. The on-going development and success of such activities morph our ways of thinking about what it is to 'do biophysics' and add to our understanding of the physics of life. Many scientists in this research and teaching landscape are homed in physics departments. A challenge for a hosting department is how to group, name and structure such biophysicists to best add value to their emerging research and teaching but also to the portfolio of the whole department. Here we discuss these issues and speculate on strategies.

Physics Education,Biological Physics
Ancient texts to PubMed: a brief history of the peer-review process

P R Farrell,L Magida Farrell,M K Farrell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.209

2016-11-17

Journal of Perinatology

Abstract:The formal evaluation of scientific literature by invited referees (peer reviewers) is a relatively recent phenomenon and now is considered a cornerstone of modern science. However, its roots can be traced back to antiquity. As the speed and complexity of scientific information and publishing increases in the digital age, peer review must continue to evolve. To understand the future direction of peer review, we must understand its past. Here, we briefly explore the history of scientific peer review. This may help us predict and design appropriate peer review for the new era. This work was originally presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting in Baltimore, Maryland in the Spring of 2016.

pediatrics,obstetrics & gynecology

A biology journal that can teach physicists a lesson in peer review

Where physics and biology meet

Preprint Peer Review Enhances Undergraduate Biology Students' Disciplinary Literacy and Sense of Belonging in STEM

De- and Re-constructing Introductory Physics for the Life Sciences

A Primer: Peer Review Process for Advances in Physiology Education

arXiv and the Symbiosis of Physics Preprints and Journal Review Articles

Physical Biology : challenges for our second decade

How and why eLife selects papers for peer review

Bright and dynamic, constantly updated and enhanced online.?

Life is physics: evolution as a collective phenomenon far from equilibrium

How can we improve problem-solving in undergraduate biology? Applying lessons from 30 years of physics education research

Essay: Exploring the Physics of Basic Medical Research

Challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review

Toward better physics labs for future biologists

NEXUS/Physics: An interdisciplinary repurposing of physics for biologists

Nature's loss, Immunologists gain?

Pioneering research has a new home in a trusted place

A focused assignment encouraging deep reading in undergraduate biochemistry

“Reproducible” Research in Mathematical Sciences Requires Changes in our Peer Review Culture and Modernization of our Current Publication Approach

The case for biophysics super-groups in physics departments

Ancient texts to PubMed: a brief history of the peer-review process