German neuroscientists study the brains of neuroscientists

Science begins at home if you're a German neuroscientist, as a group of German researchers have published a peer reviewed paper on just what happens in their brains when they get excited about publishing a peer reviewed paper.

According to their research, which was published in the journal PloS One, the researchers had the scientists perform two tasks - one with the promise of money, and another with the possibility of being published in various journals.

They then scanned the scientists' brains and checked their behaviour.

What they found was the scientists were a whole lot keener on journals with a high impact factor, with their brains behaving accordingly.

This was similar to if they thought they would get more money.

Impact factor is generally criticised, but publishing in a journal with a high impact factor is still something to brag about.

According to the researchers, the results suggest that impact factor is 'the new currency in science' and may be processed in a way that is complementary to monetary rewards.

"We find consistent indications that a higher Journal Impact Factor is associated with greater subject reward value, faster reaction times, and stronger nucleus accumbens response in the prospect of publication," the researchers wrote.

In other words, their brain gets happy.

While they caution that they were studying scientists in a lab setting, it does show that human reward system sensitivity adapts quite nicely to different situations.

The researchers caution that this could have unintended side effects.

"The excessive use of the journal impact factor as the predominant incentive and indicator for scientific quality might be dysfunctional in motivating scientists to “publishing well rather than often” . Further, the extensive use of extrinsic rewards such as money, but also surrogates such as the journal impact factor, could compromise intrinsic motivation and curiosity."

They also worry that most criticisms of impact factor focus on their being better ways to measure a scientist's excellence, rather than considering whether we should be using such metrics in the first place.

"Accordingly, we wish to close with a reference to Werner’s recent comment that “[m]any negative effects of bibliometrics come not from using it, but from the anticipation that it will be used. When we believe that we will be judged by silly criteria, we will adapt and behave in silly ways”."