Talk:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Access
In most cases, you will have access  without needing to ask. All articles published more than 6 months ago are available free--this is known as Delayed open access, as are about 30% of the more recent ones, where the author has paid a supplemental fee--this is known as Hybrid open accessDGG 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Date
A date should be used in preference to "recently", otherwise the article will date quickly. If this is late 2002 or early 2003 (for example) then say so. (I know it's hard to get used to saying "recently", but using specific dates is one of the rules to consider and helps the articles become true encyclopedia articles). -- Lexor 08:15 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, you make a good point. In fact, I hesitated before I used the "recently." Thing is, I'll have to do some research to get a date. I think the policy of identifying a paper's manner of submission was argued for and brought about in the late 80's, but I'm not positive. I'll see if I can find out. 168... 14:11 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Then again, perhaps it was closer to the mid-nineties. I may be fuzzy about things besides the date too. One early nineties article on the Web refers to a then recently abandoned policy of accepting without formal or tradtional peer review any article sponsored by three members, the 2nd two chosen by the first. It suggested abandonment of the policy was over a particular paper. Elsewhere on the Web there's mention of a policy brouhaha over publication by PNAS of a paper by HIV-deny-er Peter Duesberg in 1989. These may be one and the same cause. I didn't exactly state a cause, but I implied it was the issues I described. Perhaps it was both--political clamouring over Duesberg the proximal cause, the simmering issues I described being responsible for the readiness to a make a change in response. The controversy I described comes from my recollection of a talk I heard by the biochemist Howard Schachman, an Academy mover and shaker, as well as scuttlebutt. In this seeming exerpt from the Scientist (http://www.skepticfiles.org/science/930906ts.htm), one can read a disgruntled scientist alluding in 1993 to the widely opined dubiousness of papers in PNAS. " Until recently, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences did not mandate peer review. Quality presumably was maintained by examining an author's previous track record. However, this is no longer true for PNAS." 168... 15:29 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I notice this page is identical to http://www.enpsychlopedia.com/psypsych/PNAS. -- Apologise for having no registered name.
 * Actually that page notes that it took the article from Wikipedia, not the other way around: "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences". (If you would like to edit this document, click on the Wikipedia article link above.)" --MPW 01:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

PNAS pictures PD?
Are pictures from PNAS in the public domain, like NASA pictures are? --Bender235 01:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * no. even for the material that is open access, the pictures may be protected. DGG 20:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts...
I've added a fact tag to the point about being widely read internationally. (In my experience (UK biomedicine) it's not a particularly commonly used journal, far less so than say, Science or the top American medical journals.)

Is it worth a discussion of why there's such a difference in ranking between impact factor and number of citations? Presumably at least part of the very high absolute number of citations is because of the large page count? Unfortunately, I don't have access to any sources that discuss this type of issue.

Also, is it worth stating that the 'communicated by' system was (I believe) formerly used, and trying to give some sense of how common this society-based method of peer review was among other academic journals? Espresso Addict 02:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * According to this study it looks like some think that PNAS's open access contributes to its number of citations. But that wouldn't account for what you're talking about.  Impact factor is essentially dividing the number of citations by the number of articles, right?  Therefore the discrepancy in citations and impact factor would be wholly attributable to size.  But hmm... what do I know.  Isn't this DGG's specialty?
 * On a more general note, I haven't figured out a good way to search for journals. All the places I know to search invariably return sources from the journal or about the journal's articles instead of sources about the journal itself.  Does anyone know a clever way to get around this? --JayHenry 15:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe so, though I don't know whether or not the two indexes are selecting their citations from the same pool of journals. And no, I've hit that problem with finding sources, without finding any solution. I've taken the opposite approach recently of selecting journals to work on where I've happened upon sources about the journal, mainly from the sponsoring society. Espresso Addict 08:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How is PNAS pronounced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.50.38 (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Classic articles"
Is anyone keeping an eye on that section? As far as I can tell it's all OR (who determines which articles are "classic" and which aren't?). Almost all the entries there are from the same one or two people, which leads me to think someone created that section to push a couple authors. I'm thinking of removing the section entirely if there are no objections here. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I went ahead and BOLDly removed it. It appears almost all the content was added by one single-purpose editor and a couple IPs (diff) back in early 2008, and has not really been added to since (diff). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this edit. I'm posting this in light of the frequent RVs to concur with Rjanag. 018 (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The term Highly Cited is Marketing, POV, and not appropriate for the article
I removed the POV statements about the journal publishing highly cited articles. Long term citation has been shown to not even correlate with the impact factor of the journal (Dashun Wang et al. 2013 Science vol:342, pp 127-32). Translation, short term citation is driven SOLELY by the market penetration of the journal, and their claim that they are publishing the most highly cited science is complete and utter bunk. We should not be parroting the marketing strategy of these journals in wikipedia. It is irrelevent to the article. The opening description still places PNAS suitably among the prestigious journals, for what that is worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.91.225 (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * IF is nearly 10. That makes it a highly-cited journal. Not marketing. Fact. And a relevant one. And no one said they were the most highly-cited journal out there. In the 2000s, there were the 2nd most cited journal. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The journal's name has no "the" in it
As per the publisher, the journal's name is Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Marie.be (talk • contribs) 22:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Landmark papers
The article included the following landmark papers. I moved them here, since those weren't referenced, and the criteria for inclusion is unclear. Papers highlighted on the PNAS website as 'Landmark papers' include the following:

Certainly PNAS has a ton of landmark papers, but we need a solid criteria for inclusion, not just PNAS's word that these are important. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

What would be helpful information to determine whether these are landmark papers or not? The guidance on WP:JWG is somewhat general. I am happy to do the research. Smohin (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC
 * Non-PNAS affiliated sources saying that a paper is important/landmark. Failing that, Nobel Papers, if there are any. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Will take a look and report back. Appreciate your help.Smohin (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Cover image
The cover image for the journal is not updated to include the new logo (rebranded in 2022). How is the cover image updated since this needs permission from the journal to use the image? Sri55ann (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)