Sunday, March 02, 2008

Cool new tool to help decide where to submit a scientific paper and what scientists are working on

Just found out about a freaky and cool new tool called Jane - the Journal/Author Name Estimator. For more on the approach see this paper in Bioinformatics.

Here is how it works -- you paste some text into a box and you can get the tool to suggest a journal that is most suitable for your work. Or you can have the tool search for an author who is doing work similar to what is in the text (this is useful to find reviewers or papers to look at)

One thing I like about the journal tool is that it highlights which journals are Open Access and which are deposited in Pubmed Central. I have tried it out in a few different ways and it seems pretty useful. So if you want guidance on where to submit a paper or who might make a good reviewer of a paper, check it out. It seems like it would make a good tool to help reporters find someone to interview too.


  1. Ooh,

    I'm glad that others agree. (Hi J-C)

    Hello Jonathan and I'm so pleased to learn of your position at PLoS. I'm reasonably well known around that neck of the woods.

    I recently posted a blog entry over at Nature Network about JANE and as you will see, this was met with a rather icy welcome.

    By means of an introduction Jonathan, check out my most recent interview (this time) by PLoS's Bora Zivkovic.

  2. I put in the complete text of the H.P. Lovecraft story "The Call of Cthulhu"
    and it suggested, I kid you not, _The Harvard Business Review_.

  3. Dear Jonathan,

    Using your lead to JANE I found that the concept, abstracted below, falls in a rather empty field.

    By the way, your colleague Prof. Jim Clegg of UC Davis, helped in editing the book.

    I would appreciate any advice as how to promote both the BCS concept and the book (


    Biofield Control System of the Organism
    Savely Savva
    Monterey Institute for the Study of Alternative Healing Arts

    Abstract: Developmental biologists, starting with H. Driesch and A. Gurvitsch at the beginning of the 20th century, suggested the existence of a non-chemical level of organization that controls embryogenesis—the “biofield.” In the middle of the century, developmental biologists called it “epiphenomenon of genome.” In the 1960s, Romanian biochemist, Eugene Macovschi, postulated the existence of cellular “biostructure”—an entity that controls processes in living cells and changes chemical properties of constituent molecules. In 2000, at the announcement of deciphering the human genome, Craig Venter, then CEO of Celera Genomics, said exactly the same—to understand the way the genome operates, it should be considered a “different” (presumably, non-chemical) level of organization.

    Yet, in 2005, the absolute majority of studies in biochemistry, molecular biology, biophysics, etc., are about chemical signals associated with developmental, normal physiological and aging processes, and diseases—their structure and presumed mechanisms of action. The control system that arranges these signals is almost never mentioned, although it is clear that any gene, a part of a DNA chemical molecule, does not have the ‘mind’ or the ‘plan’ and the feedback mechanism needed to control anything.

    How is the control system of the organism structured, what is its physical carrier, and how is the genetic information re-encoded on it? The contemporary, still Newtonian physics, does not have any answers to these questions. This monograph is intended to clarify the formulation of the problem and to suggest some approaches to solving it.

  4. If you click on "More Options" you can choose to scan ONLY open access journals if you want. Then look at people....


Most recent post

Panoramas from the past ...

In 1997, my then girlfriend (now wife) and I went camping in Death Valley. It was our fourth trip there to camp in grad. school. I brought m...