PACN wrote:I also agree with Michael J. that being able to recognize what is hot in science is essential. I'll add that, depending on your position and journal, you might have to stretch a lot beyond your field. I think having a breadth of knowledge beyond your field really helps.
As a reader/submitter of scientific journals I have at times felt what was "hot" was not truly hot. I've also seen topics that were published in a C/N/S paper one year, and then 1-2 years later once the authors had the fully fleshed out details for the follow up paper flatly turned down.
In my opinion, you'd think the C/N/S journal would want the follow up where more was discovered and functional differences were demonstrated.
PACN: Is "what's hot" decided only by the editor, or do a group of you sit around and discuss/vote on it? As I feel what's hot is often subjective. Unless it's some "WOW" discovery like the structure of a relevant membrane protein.