Do academic journals pose a threat to the advancement of science?

[Smalheiser, Neil]

The previous email included this statement: "Sulston argues that the use of journal metrics is not only a flimsy guarantee of the best work (his prize-winning discovery was never published in a top journal),..." Is this true?

I extracted the references cited in Sulston's Nobel lecture covering the period of lineage tracing in C. elegans development, that had Sulston as a co-author (below). The lineage raw data may have been circulated in the Worm Breeder's Gazette prior to publication, but the publications are indeed in top journals: Phil. Trans. Royal Soc., Genetics, Developmental Biology, and one in Science. None of these journals could be described as even middle-of-the-road, much less obscure.

It should be emphasized that top journals should not be confused with 'high-impact' journals -- certainly Developmental Biology is the best and most credible journal in its field, even though [like almost all specialty journals] its impact factor does not approach the lofty heights.

J. G. White, E. Southgate, J. N. Thomson, S. Brenner, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B. 1976, 275, 327-348.
J. E. Sulston, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B. 1976, 275, 287-297.
H. R. Horvitz, J. E. Sulston, Genetics 1990, 126, 287-292.
J. E. Sulston, H. R. Horvitz, Dev. Biol. 1977, 56, 110-156.
J. E. Sulston, D. G. Albertson, J. N. Thomson, Dev. Biol. 1980, 78, 542-576.
J. E. Sulston, J. G. White, Dev. Biol. 1980, 78, 577-597.
H. R. Horvitz, J. E. Sulston, Genetics 1980, 96, 435-454.
J. E. Sulston, H. R. Horvitz, Dev. Biol. 1981, 82, 41-55.
E. M. Hedgecock, J. E. Sulston, J. N. Thomson, Science 1983, 220, 1277-1279.
J. E. Sulston, E. Schierenberg, J. G. White, J. N. Thomson, Dev. Biol. 1983, 100, 64-119.