Previous Article |
Table of Contents
| Next Article 
EDITORIALS
How and why to publish in PNAS
"Work, finish, publish!" Faraday's (1) advice to a young scientist is still good advice for all scientists today. But where should an author publish? Authors face the twin problems of obtaining the best exposure and fairest review of their work. PNAS has a big plus in these two areas; quality control is provided by the members and foreign associates of a national academy of unusual depth and breadth, and PNAS is the first choice of many of them for publishing their own best work. But PNAS is not just a house or U.S. journal; it is open to all scientists, and currently some 30% of its published articles come from abroad. Last year, authors from 70 countries published in PNAS (Table 1), and the editors of PNAS want to increase further the international input to the journal. I have been appointed Associate Editor with special responsibility in this area in Europe. The PNAS Editorial Board has always had a strong representation of foreign associates, and currently it has 16 international representatives (Table 2).
|
|
All papers published in PNAS are subject to peer review by referees, and final approval from a member of the Editorial Board is required. The normal procedure is to submit papers via Track II. The paper is first screened by a Board member who will decide whether the paper is likely to be in the top 10% of its field and is sound. The Board member has to reject on average two out of three papers at this stage. Believe me, this decision is painful because most papers sent to the journal are good and enjoyable to read; however, we have to redirect a high proportion to more specialized journals because of the page limit for PNAS articles and because we cannot exhaust our supply of editors and referees. So, the first tip is to make a strong and succinct case in your cover letter for the novelty and timeliness of your work.
The second tip is to recommend several members of the National Academy as appropriate editors for your work because Members are sometimes un-available. The Editorial Board may elect to use your suggested editors or may choose another National Academy member as the member-editor. The member-editor may recommend rejection without review or choose referees. So the third tip is to recommend as many suitable referees as possible. About 50% of the papers allocated to editors are eventually published, subject to the approval of the initiating Board member.
Members are allowed to "communicate" up to two papers each per annum for nonmembers in their own sphere of expertise via Track I, for which the member procures at least two reviews before submission to the editorial office. Since the introduction of Track II as the general route for submitted papers, many members will no longer communicate papers through Track I. Because the initial processing of communicated manuscripts is not handled by the editorial office, the review process for Track I papers can take much longer because tardy referees are not hassled by the vigilant PNAS staff. All Track I papers are subject to final approval by a Board member, who will reject or send back the paper for further review if it is not up to the PNAS standard.
Do not be afraid of sending us your best papers. Optimize the review process by taking advantage of the depth of our expertise and making your own suggestions. If you can satisfy the expert Board member, specialist member-editor, and referees, congratulations as you will have made it to the top 15% of an already highly self-selected set of excellent papers! And your work will be highly visible as PNAS provides immediate free online access to developing countries (www.pnas.org/misc/faq.shtml#developing), a very large number of subscribing institutions, and only a 6-month delay to all others. You also have the opportunity to purchase immediate access for nonsubscribers through the PNAS open access option.
© 2005 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA
References
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg What's this?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
