Randy Schekman

Yes, good and obvious question. Of course, I have nothing to lose at this point but we all are losing because of the current "luxury" journal system that amounts to a lottery system for work makes it into in Cell, Nature and Science. The most crucial point to understand is that these journals base their decision n what can fit into a print version which artificially limits the number of papers they can publish. Why should we have such a limitation in the 21st century? This tyranny must end and my postdocs are perfectly happy to publish their best work in journals such as eLife where all decisions are made by active scientists. More and more PIs are coming to this conclusion and as a group we CAN change the system!

bicycle

How perceptive!

Yes, negative data are important and should have a place for publication. eLife will publish such results if the negative data come to some new and important conclusions

Yes, these are fine journals but they have not yet challenged the stranglehold Cell, Nature and Science have on the biomedical literature. Thus, I feel we need a another venue where the decisions are made in an open and consultative manner with experts who are practicing scientists making all the decisions about what to review, what manuscript revisions to recommend and ultimately, what to accept for publication

Work hard, stay focused and do not be become discouraged by the daily frustrations of your research. Keep your eye on the big picture. This is the same advice I would provide to a male entering a career in scientific research.

Where did you get that number? In any case, eLife must be selective if we are to encourage submission of the most important work. If we accepted a majority of the submitted articles, we would not attract major discoveries. However, we will not make our decisions based on the latest fashion or a desire to improve an "impact factor"!

My work revealed the genes and proteins required for the export (secretion) of proteins from cells.

Have job candidates write a brief - no longer than 250 word - self assessment of their most important discoveries. This is exactly how candidates for election to the National Academy of Sciences are evaluated and not where the work is published.

Superb! Dessert.