I’ve noticed an interesting trend in the Correspondence section of Nature in recent years. Dissent. Questions about how science, as a community, operates.
Many young scientists, attempting to establish careers, feel rightly or wrongly that there is an “scientific establishment”, consisting of older, tenured scientists who are resistant to change or unreceptive to new ideas about how science should be done. More and more though, we are seeing debate about issues such as open access publishing, intellectual property, peer review and authorship. This week for example there are letters about reviewing reviewers, the merits of papers versus those of journals and how author lists are ordered.
I find all of this very encouraging.