A journal for peer-reviewed, linearly readable reports of life sciences. They will probably look like blog posts.
Rules:
No Introduction, Methods, Results, or other sections, just a linear article without subheadings, meant to be read from beginning to end.
No Abstract. At most, a Prologue.
No flashy, unreadable figures. Every number, every gene, every block in a heatmap should be meant to be read by a human.
Articles should be written by one and only one author.
The authors should have done the work themselves.
In that way, reports will likely end up being small. That is okay.
Authors should read all references they cite. References need to indicate where the information can be found in the work by mentioning the relevant pages.
Personal takes are encouraged.
Perspectives / theoretical articles are also welcome.
Statistical tests are generally misleading; they are discouraged.
Authors should only report things they are personally quite sure of. They consider biological phenomena to be robust, and they have observed them multiple times in a variety of contexts. At best, they should add circumstantial comments that reveal their degree of doubt.
Authors are responsible for their reports. They will be trusted on their word.
Reproductions, replications, and small, interesting observations that don't really fit anywhere are encouraged, too.
• Peer review should only weed out logically unsupported claims to make sure the journal avoids legal problems and to prevent work that can fuel hate speech from coming up.
A journal for peer-reviewed, linearly readable reports of life sciences. They will probably look like blog posts.
Rules:
No Introduction, Methods, Results, or other sections, just a linear article without subheadings, meant to be read from beginning to end.
No Abstract. At most, a Prologue.
No flashy, unreadable figures. Every number, every gene, every block in a heatmap should be meant to be read by a human.
Articles should be written by one and only one author.
The authors should have done the work themselves.
In that way, reports will likely end up being small. That is okay.
Authors should read all references they cite. References need to indicate where the information can be found in the work by mentioning the relevant pages.
Personal takes are encouraged.
Perspectives / theoretical articles are also welcome.
Statistical tests are generally misleading; they are discouraged.
Authors should only report things they are personally quite sure of. They consider biological phenomena to be robust, and they have observed them multiple times in a variety of contexts. At best, they should add circumstantial comments that reveal their degree of doubt.
Authors are responsible for their reports. They will be trusted on their word.
Reproductions, replications, and small, interesting observations that don't really fit anywhere are encouraged, too.
• Peer review should only weed out logically unsupported claims to make sure the journal avoids legal problems and to prevent work that can fuel hate speech from coming up.