Even if an invention doesn’t have what it takes to be commercially viable, there are many publications that create opportunities for investigators to make their work available at no cost to the public. There are a vast number of journals in each specialization that exist to publish specialized highly technical work. Getting published is important because it is a barometer of productivity.
Investigators working in a particular field usually have a sense of which journals are most likely to be interested in publishing their work. Journals have varying standards and stature in their fields. Some journals are top notch and have high standards so those are the ones that usually get approached first.
First, the investigator drafts the article and submits it to the publication. Then the editor farms it out to a panel of referees. They are investigators in their own right, bringing second and third opinions on the validity of the work. That includes the integrity of the data, the validity of how that data is interpreted and presented, and the credibility of the conclusions. They write referee reports of each article they are asked to review. The editor of the journal looks at the comments and decides whether the article meets the standards of the journal. The investigator is also permitted to see the referees’ comments and is given an opportunity to respond to them and address whether they are valid or not. The investigator might revise the article, or even go back to laboratory and do more work to address the objections that one or more of the referees raised before they resubmit the paper.
No matter how beautifully the material is presented, bad science is still bad science. The actual hands-on work in the lab and the brainpower that goes into that work goes hand-and-glove with packaging that work in a way that will be persuasive, scientifically sound and valid.
- Does the paper provide a clear statement of the scientific problem and question?
- Does it lay out the relevance of that study to the greater field?
- Will it have a far-reaching impact?
- What combination of techniques was used in the laboratory?
- What questions were asked to get to the final result?
- How carefully has the data been analyzed, digested and presented?
- Is the science airtight?
- Were all the necessary controls done or are there some loopholes that might allow alternative explanations that would conflict with the conclusions that the investigator has drawn and tried to promote?