Hello,
I would like to clarify myself what are the minimal deepness standards a work should reach to entry the scientific community in the field of bioinformatics. So, I would like you to list some journals known to accept scientifically valid but not broad works. In addition, I welcome examples of these minimal lesser accepted works (published).
Ahh, the question of the Least Publishable Unit. I think anyone asking for a public listing of "minimal lesser accepted works" is looking for trouble. Frankly, this question is something you should ask experienced researchers in private, rather than asking it anonymously in public. That said, you might want to look at PLoS One, which accepts work from any scientific field and will publish "all papers that are judged to be technically sound". If you're looking for journals with narrower scope, then you should look at 1) the title of the journal and 2) the editorial vision communicated by the journal's board/editors and 3) the actual articles published over the last few years.
I am pretty sure that often a small step in Bioinformatics can be a giant step for biology. So if you want to publish minimal bioinformatics work, try focusing on generic biological journal, although this might require some collaboration with other disciplines. Then again most bioinformaticians have strong ties with other disciplines.
There are a number of author-pays journals just starting up that welcome least-publishable units. Their business model does not rely on anyone ever reading the papers, so some of them will accept complete crap. Vanity publishing is becoming quite fashionable in science now.
Note: not all open-access journals are vanity presses. PLoS Computational Biology and Nucleic Acids Research still have very high standards, for example.
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
version 2.3.6
PLoS One exemplifies a journal which uses correctness of method rather than broad appeal to a wide audience as editorial policy, so that was a direct answer to your second sentence. Science is largely incremental and many research projects are necessarily narrow in scope but can still make a valuable contribution to the literature. Still, I would not appreciate it if I read that someone had cited my work as an example of "minimal deepness", whether they signed their name or not. In my mind that goes beyond "narrow scope" and casts a negative judgment on the author's intent.
I think what David says is that all those of us who do not keep our identities hidden cannot possibly point our fingers at specific journals or publications and say that they are "lesser accepted works" or the "least publishable unit". And he is right.
Honestly, I do not understand what is wrong with asking that question here: science is made both by grate discoveries and small steps, I do not find it deprecable to have the will to share the second type of improvement, so I do not feel the necessity of contacting someone privately. Indeed, I feel it to be a common doubt. I also feel free to keep my identity hidden (for reasons which are not related to this question), as BioStar does not require the user to declare name and surname. You assumed bad faith, but my only aim here is to understand the quantization of bioinformatics' literature.
Ok, I did not mind to offend authors, journals or BioStar's users. Please feel free to close the question if you judge it inappropriate.