Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:title>The whys and wherefores of SciSci</jats:title> <jats:p> The science of science (SciSci) is based on a transdisciplinary approach that uses large data sets to study the mechanisms underlying the doing of science—from the choice of a research problem to career trajectories and progress within a field. In a Review, Fortunato <jats:italic>et al.</jats:italic> explain that the underlying rationale is that with a deeper understanding of the precursors of impactful science, it will be possible to develop systems and policies that improve each scientist's ability to succeed and enhance the prospects of science as a whole. </jats:p> <jats:p> <jats:italic>Science</jats:italic> , this issue p. <jats:related-article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="doi" related-article-type="in-this-issue" xlink:href="10.1126/science.aao0185">eaao0185</jats:related-article> </jats:p>

<jats:title>Maps of defense arsenals in microbial genomes</jats:title> <jats:p> To survive the attack of foreign invaders such as viruses and plasmids, bacteria and archaea fight back with immune systems that are usually clustered in “defense islands” in their genomes. Doron <jats:italic>et al.</jats:italic> took advantage of this property to map microbial defense systems systematically (see the Perspective by Kim). Candidate immune systems were then experimentally validated for their activities. Like well-known defense arsenals such as restriction-modification and CRISPR systems, these additional immune systems now require mechanistic investigation and could potentially be engineered into useful molecular tools in the future. </jats:p> <jats:p> <jats:italic>Science</jats:italic> , this issue p. <jats:related-article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="doi" related-article-type="in-this-issue" xlink:href="10.1126/science.aar4120">eaar4120</jats:related-article> ; see also p. <jats:related-article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="doi" issue="6379" page="993" related-article-type="in-this-issue" vol="359" xlink:href="10.1126/science.aas9430">993</jats:related-article> </jats:p>

<jats:p> Authorship on papers is one of the major currencies of the scientific enterprise. Nevertheless, the contributions of different authors to a given paper have remained relatively opaque. Contributions are generally inferred from the order of authors, and implications of position on the authorship list vary between different investigators and scientific fields. A year ago, a group of editors and publishers across a wide range of disciplines met to discuss how to provide a more systemic solution to make author contributions more transparent. This week, their recommendations have been released ( <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1715374115">www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1715374115</jats:ext-link> ), and I applaud this effort and urge the wide adoption of this system. </jats:p>

<jats:p>A roundup of weekly science policy and related news.</jats:p>

<jats:p>Scientists link species' declines to the mining of construction-grade sand.</jats:p>

<jats:p>University of Central Florida will take over operations of iconic radio dish.</jats:p>

<jats:p>Researchers hope to launch clinical trial of new strategy.</jats:p>

<jats:p>Modifying enzyme used by CRISPR brings four times more DNA within reach of its molecular scissors.</jats:p>