explore LSI
- Volume 3 Number 1
- March 2007
making a difference in human health through collaborative scientific discovery
On Board
Mapping a Future for PNAS
Randy Sheckman
The PNAS has been long recognized as a leading outlet for some of the most cutting edge advances in science. Under the stewardship of the National Academy of Sciences, the journal has focused on short reports of truly new and groundbreaking science in a wide range of disciplines.
When I was a graduate student, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) was the journal of record in biochemistry and molecular biology even though every publication had to be communicated through or contributed by a member of the NAS. Thus, it was very much like a restricted gentlemen's club. Today, science journals have broken the mold, much like new science institutions such as the Life Sciences Institute (LSI) at the University of Michigan. Research institutions such as LSI, along with the big journals, have changed with the pace of technology and knowledge creation, allowing for substantial information sharing and greater access to substantive immediate resources.
As a board member of LSI, I know that their strengths are collaboration amongst the brightest scientists and promoting research across disciplines. With PNAS, our strength should be inviting the best authors to submit their hottest papers and stretching the boundaries to reach into new areas of science outside of the subjects traditionally represented in the journal.
As the new editor, I want to encourage the submission of the best papers in all of science, retool the online version of the journal to attract more readers, and enhance the coverage of interdisciplinary research. The scientific literature is much more complex than when I began as a graduate student in the early 1970s. PNAS had little competition from other journals. Cell didn't exist and Nature had failed at an early attempt to clone itself in the form of Nature New Biology. Although PNAS is edited by the nation's best scientists, and despite progress in broadening its base, PNAS lacks the impact it once had. I want to re-establish its priority.
The intention is to exploit the full potential of online publication and broaden the appeal of the print version for a scientifically literate audience.
Almost all journals, including PNAS, have a significant online presence but have not weaned themselves from the printed version. In the not so distant past, most scientists relied on bound journals as a primary source of information. Now, we all scan the literature online and benefit from a tremendous increase in the speed and scope of the material we access. Unfortunately, many print journals, and PNAS is no exception, must impose an artificial length restriction. We are considering a proposal to remove the length restriction for online publications in PNAS and reduce the length of the print version to include only special features and the abstracts and one page summaries of most of the research articles. The intention is to exploit the full potential of online publication and broaden the appeal of the print version for a scientifically literate audience.
We can embrace the electronic publication revolution without diminishing the status of publication, and at the same time, reduce waste and duplication. There is no doubt that the Internet enhances our connection to our readers. For instance, we could do video interviews with authors of featured articles or newly elected NAS members.
I intend to engage the NAS members in the process of reinventing PNAS. Traditionally the journal has had strength in life sciences, but we aim to broaden our appeal through special initiatives in interdisciplinary areas with clusters of articles that better reflect the scope of science today. My predecessor Nick Cozzarelli instituted one such new initiative in sustainability science, which includes atmospheric, geologic, carbon cycle, and environmental areas which are by definition interdisciplinary and reflective of the academy's broad membership.
These are big, but necessary changes, transforming the journal out of its printed box, modeling the silo-busting of the LSI. It will take time to gain approval, but as I've discussed these ideas with colleagues, support is building.