Theory of spike initiation, sensory systems, autonomous behavior, epistemology
This epistemological paper makes a number of important points about what constitutes an explanation in neuroscience, with many interesting pointers to relevant ideas in philosophy and psychology. A strong tendency in current literature is to identify neural circuits that are « necessary » for a particular behavior, in that a lesion would suppress the behavior, and « sufficient » for that behavior, in that activation of the circuit produces the behavior. To what extent do these observations constitute a biological explanation of the behavior ? The author points out that such explanations focus exclusively on efficient cause, that is, the source of the change (the firing of a neuron causes the contraction of a muscle). Interestingly, as noted by the author, this is typically not the type of explanation that physics produce. For example, a physical explanation of the spherical shape of a bubble does not typically involve a chain of molecular events, but rather a more global explanation based on the minimization of energy by the entire structure (in philosophical terms, a final cause).
It is not clear that efficient causes are a very relevant concept for biology. First, as the author notes : « Causal manipulations do not produce the behavioral effect : they reproduce it in a given context. ». Thus, to claim that a neural circuit is « sufficient » is highly misleading, because it works in the context of the entire organism ; it is the manipulation that is sufficient, not the neural circuit. Second, a glimpse at the connections between brain areas or at a metabolic pathway should convince us that interactions between biological elements do not form a linear chain at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that as a chain of causal events can explain biological processes, in particular behavior. In addition to the internal dependencies between neurons, coupling with the environment implies that there is also circular causality between sensory inputs and the organism's actions : actions cause sensory inputs just as much as inputs cause actions. As noted by the author, the implicit view that neurons react to stimuli is only a modern form of behaviorism, which we thought had been outmoded several decades ago (see e.g. Chomsky, 1959).
The author proposes to abandon the behaviorist perspective and instead : « Rather than concentrating on models of behavior, let us conceive models that behave, and then set up our experiments so as to allow control, not of the animal, but by the animal. ». This I find inspiring for theoretical neuroscience. Instead of building models of stimulus-responses experiments and then pretend that the neural responses are somehow linked to behavior (typically through a « decoder » which is purely abstract construct), perhaps we should try to build models that exhibit some actual behavior, which means addressing the full sensorimotor loop.
A peeriodical is a lightweight virtual journal with you as the Editor-in-chief, giving you complete freedom in setting editorial policy to select the most interesting and useful manuscripts for your readers. The manuscripts you will evaluate and select are existing publications—preprints and papers. Thus, a peeriodical replicates all the functions of a traditional journal, including discovery, selection and certification, except publication itself.
Why set up a peeriodical? The traditional journal has changed remarkably little in centuries and many people feel that scientific publishing is stuck in a rut, subject to a corporatist drift, and is not serving science optimally. The advent of preprints in many fields beyond those served by the ArXiv is liberating the dissemination of research, but most other journal functions have not been replaced effectively. Now you—all researchers—have the opportunity to select and certify research according to your own criteria. We expect peeriodical subject matters and editorial policies to be extremely varied. Some peeriodicals may wish to target narrow domains, while others will adopt a generalist approach. Some peeriodicals will be inclusive, focusing on discovery, whereas others may aim to enforce stringent quality criteria, prioritising certification. The point is that all approaches are permitted and supported—we hope you will innovate! You can create multiple peeriodicals. It will be users and readers who decide which peeriodicals they find useful and interesting. Users can sign up to receive alerts from any peeriodical they wish.
A peeriodical has one or more editors. Anybody can set-up a peeriodical and either operate it alone or invite colleagues to form an editorial board or community. The editors can select "manuscripts"—existing papers or preprints—to consider, either spontaneously or through suggestions from other researchers, including of course the authors. Note that there is no obligation that the manuscript be recent; for instance, we expect that some peeriodicals could focus on underappreciated classics. After all, predictions about scientific impact are generally more accurate for the past than the future. If the editors wish, they can solicit reviews for the manuscript via the Peeriodicals interface. Reviews will be published and the referees will have the option of posting anonymously or signing their review. Editors may decide at any time to accept, reject or comment on the manuscript, taking into account the comments received. They may of course suggest improvements to the manuscript or underlying study. If they justify their decision, their editorial decision will also be published.
How will Peeriodicals fit into the publishing landscape? We see them as a space without entry barriers in which researchers can innovate and explore new approaches to scientific dissemination, in parallel to the traditional publishing industry. There are related and complementary initiatives, notably the overlay journals promoted by Tim Gowers, exemplified by Discrete Analysis, but also Science Open Collections, PLoS Channels, the APPRAISE initiative and Peer Community in... Each of these projects has their own specificities and goals. Nobody yet knows exactly what the future will look like, but we strongly believe that we are about to experience a period of rapid evolution in the dissemination of science and we hope that Peeriodicals will inspire and help you to share your imagination and expertise with the whole research community.
For those starting a peeriodical, you will discover that the hardest part is building up an audience. Unfortunately, we can't yet guarantee you the exposure you would get from a paper in a glamour journal. Reviews with scientific content will be mirrored on PubPeer, offering an audience through the PubPeer browser and Zotero extensions. However, it will be largely up to you to run your publicity, most likely through social media. We are on Twitter (@PEERIODICALS) and will of course help out as we can.
Get started now by requesting an invitation with the link in the top right menu.