Michael Eisen has an interesting post up today on a topic which comes up occasionally here on this blog. He blames peer review, but really it is an indictment of GlamourMag science. A criticism of the conflation of journal reputation with the quality of any article published therein.
One finger point is directed at the reviewer/editor demands for more data/studies/proof before a paper could be accepted. I agree with much of Eisen's critique on this point.
What I am pondering today, however, is the tight NIH grant supply.
It strikes me that this is going to be a damn good thing if it stomps down on authors' willingness to put up with unnecessary* reviewer demands for more work.
*the controls appropriate to evaluate the data as presented are fair game. "gee it would be cool if you also showed blahdeeblah..." are typically not.