Debating New Theory in Neuroscience

TLDR: AIMS Neuroscience as discussed by the authors is a new journal aiming to provide a forum for the dissemination of the best theoretical views leading to suggested studies to facilitate intelligent use of the new technologies in neuroscience.

Abstract: Launching a new journal in the field of neuroscience is a formidable task. With thousands of articles being published yearly in a number of existing journals, what can another journal add to the field that is not already available? What can attract neuroscientists to submit their best articles to an unproven journal when so many exist with clear track records? Rigorous standards in what is considered acceptable are necessary if a journal is to have true impact on the field, but who wishes to consider subjecting one’s work to such standards when the journal’s future is unknown? Can a new journal actually set any kind of new standard that does not already exist? When we were asked to lead AIMS Neuroscience, these questions and many more caused us to hesitate. We had to choose a goal and navigate a course toward a niche not filled by any other journal. When surveying the landscape based on recent developments, there was one consistent aspect we saw. The massive European Union Human Brain Project, the US BRAIN project, and the Research Domain Criteria emphasis of NIMH each seem focused on producing new technologies and massive amounts of data. However, we had to agree with the observation made by many others. Where is the theory to guide all of these activities? This is the niche we hope to fill. Our goal is a lofty one in that we wish to provide a forum in which to expedite the speed with which theoretical neuroscience progresses toward generating testable hypotheses. In the presence of current and developing technology that offers unprecedented access to functions of the nervous system at all levels and the ability to analyze data via supercomputers, we want to serve the role of providing the widest variety of the best theoretical views leading to suggested studies to facilitate “intelligent” use of that technology. In the past, dominant theories tended to result in direct and indirect suppression of newer ideas. Criticism of the peer review process have been made [1], noting that anonymous reviewers may have a conflict of interest. Common sense says that the theories of the most influential scientists in the field are those that tend to be perpetuated, and the “Good Old Boys” club related to funding agencies is familiar to all. However, the introduction of new technologies in neuroscience has resulted in quite