This is a test version of Biostars. For the public version, visit https://www.biostars.org.
Forum: Plos Paper - Rise And Demise Of Bioinformatics... Overly Negative Undertones

I feel that PLOS is a reputable journal, and this article needs more scoping!

Rise and Demise of Bioinformatics? Promise and Progress: http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002487

I posted it on linkedin, so adding it here for stoking a discussion. On the contrary to the age-group analogy of bioinformatics being at its adulthood or beyond, I feel bioinformatics is currently in its prime. If there were just 30% researchers thinking about bioinformatics 5 years ago, now its more than 75%, at least in my experience. Bioinformatics is the fastest growing group in so many discussions I have had with various institutes, especially due to the next-gen sequencing influx.

bioinformatics

What's the question? Might be better suited to the Forum section (see menu links at top).

I agree, it is argumentative and would be better as forum post. I have skimmed the "Review", I agree with the concerns raised at first glance, it seems to be a singular opinion on trends backed only by google trends (I remember we had another very funny question about this 'decline' topic). It might have been published to start a discussion, but I have the impression that the paper is not scientific. If you google the Author, you might get more insight into his background, though I really don't understand why one can base a "Review" on such poor grounds. To me it looks like an editorial text, stating an opinion, and indeed it is part of an editorial series.

We could develop a different picture here, and point out where we agree or disagree.

someone already moved it to the forum section. thanks!

I checked the link in the post and tried to correct it, it is correct, but it is not displayed correctly in the generated html, might be a bug.

this comes from an third party library, it cannot cope with the colon : that is embedded into the link. The link needs to be listed explicitly. I have a fix but needs to be tested more, will be applied next week.

2 answers

If there is any demise to be afraid of it may be for the quality of the peer review process - this very paper may be an example of that.

It seems little more than wild extrapolations and subjective opinions based on inconsequential observations.

I agree that it reads as an editorial and it probably should be labelled as one, especially as the author is an editor of the journal itself:

"... is an Associate Editor for PLoS Computational Biology, PLoS ONE, and BioSystems, has been an Associate Editor for Bioinformatics, and an editorial board member of a number of journals and the Faculty of 1000. He is a founding officer of the International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB), the Mikrobiokosmos initiative (Greece), and the Hellenic Society for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (HSCBB)"

Log in to answer this question.