Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Some other issues that delay the publication of research
- Wen-Hung Kuo (4 February 2005)
-
Competition is a good antidote against sleep
- Giovanni de Girolamo (4 February 2005)
-
Multiple submissions may lead to unethical pressures
- Scott Kinkade (4 February 2005)
-
Killing peer review
- William M. Tierney (4 February 2005)
-
Iconoclastic thoughts
- Adrian S. Blaj (4 February 2005)
-
The Journal Article "Match"
- Alexander C. Tsai (6 February 2005)
-
Multi-submissions on the same reviewer's desk
- Jutta Loeffler (6 February 2005)
-
Mutual responsibility
- S Anuradha (6 February 2005)
-
A welcome suggestion
- Ramaswamy. Subramanian, Thulasimani ,M (6 February 2005)
-
Multiple submissions - Needs further evaluation
- Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Trivandrum-695011, Keral, India (6 February 2005)
-
Addendum Re: Iconoclastic thoughts
- Adrian S Blaj, Lucian Alexandrescu MD PhD, Consultant Psychiatrist, Bucharest (7 February 2005)
-
article submitted to multiple journals- If it happens as below...who is responsible???????
- akhtar sherin (7 February 2005)
-
Another drawback of multiple submission
- E Suresh (7 February 2005)
-
Re: Multiple submissions - Needs further evaluation
- Robert I. Rudolph, M.D., FACP (7 February 2005)
-
Submission to multiple journals: a method of reducing time to publication?
- waqas khan (7 February 2005)
-
The crux of the problem
- Jerry George Mathew (7 February 2005)
-
Speeding up acceptance time
- Sara Black (8 February 2005)
-
What about the reader?
- Harvey Marcovitch (8 February 2005)
-
How authors can help
- Tim Albert (8 February 2005)
-
Facilitating Publication
- Vance W Berger (10 February 2005)
-
Submission to multiple journals: a method of reducing time to publication?
- Dr.Satheesha Nayak (17 February 2005)
-
Preliminary enquiry before submission could be useful
- Bolajoko O. Olusanya (17 February 2005)
-
Multiple submission or group submission?
- Peter D Macdonald (11 March 2005)
-
Suggestion for submission for multiple journals
- DENISE RAZZOUK (15 March 2005)
-
Submission to multiple journals: what happens if there are multiple acceptances
- Marge Berer (13 May 2005)
|
|
|||
|
Wen-Hung Kuo, Assistant Professor Department of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122
Send response to journal:
|
TO THE EDITOR: I fully agree some of the analyses raised by the authors (1). However, there are also some other issues related to delay of publication of research results. Inefficiency in manuscript reviewing process is one of the major issues. I would like to share my personal experience here. I had submitted (second submission, after being rejected by Lancet) a manuscript to a psychiatric journal in summer 2002. It took them more than 6 months to get back to me with reviewers' comments asking for revision. I turned in the revised manuscript within a month. However, it took another five months for the editor to get back to me, this time asking for second revision. On one of the reviewers' comment sheet, I accidentally found out the statement in the letterhead "Please return your review within a month." One month after I turned in the second revision, I e-mailed the editorial office to inquire the status of my manuscript. They got back to me a few weeks later to ask for a third revision. This manuscript wasn't accepted until early 2004. (But fortunately, they did eventually accept it) I still wonder why editorial staff of this journal allowed their reviewers to spend 6 months to review a paper when it was specified that it should be finished within a month. Why didn't they just drop the reviewer who did not finish his or her job on time? In my first submission, Lancet spent less than a month to finish reviewing my manuscript. Ironically, it is usually second-tiered journals that are inefficient in manuscript turnaround. In turns, they slow down the whole information dissemination process. Later, as a reviewer for first-tiered journals like American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) and American Journal of Psychiatry, I found they usually allow only two weeks' period for reviewers to finish. Once the deadline is past, the editorial offices immediately send out e-mails to remind reviewers. However, as a researcher, we have no ways to know which journals are more efficient in reviewing process than others. We can only get the information anecdotally from other researchers. The aforementioned paper was published in mid-2004. The time interval between its acceptance to its publication is less than 6 months. The long time (about 23 months) it took to be published is mainly due to the inefficient review process, which is almost 15 months. 1. Torgerson DJ et al. (2005) Submission to multiple journals: a method of reducing time to publication? BMJ, 330:305-307 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Giovanni de Girolamo, Psychiatrist Dept of Mental Health, ASL di Bologna, Bologna (Italy)
Send response to journal:
|
The paper by Torgerson et al. on multiple submission offers an interesting proposal to correct the inefficiency and the poor managing style of many medical journals. There are too many journals who leave authors with no news for months and months (and possibly more than one year!), eventually come up with a refusal after a long delay, and provide no clear explanations of such decisions. Authors can generally do nothing against this inefficiency, which is unethical, especially if we consider the great amount of work and efforts which is beyond many studies (especially those carried out in countries with very poor research infrastructures, such as Italy). Allowing multiple submissions would force all journals to become efficient or to disappear (or, perhaps, would force their inefficient Editors and Boards to give up and change activity). It is therefore a very sound proposal which should be rapidly evaluated by most journals and possibly made effective as soon as possible. Competition (at least in moderate doses) is healthy! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Scott Kinkade, Assistant Professor University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, Dallas, TX, USA 75390-9067
Send response to journal:
|
I am very intrigued and impressed with this idea of multiple submissions. Anything that would make the review of articles more timely would be appreciated by authors, readers, and publishers alike. Despite the downsides listed in the article, I can imagine some difficulties would arise if an acceptance was offered from a lower-tier journal while still under review in the higher tier journal. I would think the tendency would be to 1) stall the lower tier journal until you hear word from the upper tier journal and/or 2) pressure the upper-tier journal to "hurry up" as you already have one taker. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
William M. Tierney, Co-Editor-in-Chief, Journal of General Internal Medicine 1001 West Tenth Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
Send response to journal:
|
My first reaction to this proposal of submitting an article to multiple journals who would then "compete" for first acceptance is that it is about the most unwise suggestion I have ever heard. Reasons: · Authors want thoughtful review, not just rapid review. There will be a direct tradeoff between quality and time of review. But more importantly… · If this became the norm, the number of manuscripts to review would go up by a factor of 4-5 or whatever was the average number of journals to which each manuscript was sent. Journals are suffering from an avalanche of manuscripts, and to date, there has been no way of paying for manuscript review. It is a voluntary effort by both editors and reviewers. This idea would effectively kill peer review. If the problem is that reviews can sometimestake forever, then the journals should publish statistics on how long it takes to (a) complete first review and (b) publish an article once accepted. The Journal of General Internal Medicine publishes both statistics yearly, and if these were kept in a database publicly available to authors, then that is where the competition would come into play—keeping one’s times down. Perhaps the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) could create and maintain such a database. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adrian S. Blaj, Psychiatrist London, England
Send response to journal:
|
I have been pleasantly surprised reading this timely article. Just a few months ago I attended a 'Writing an Article for Publication' workshop conducted by Tim Albert Training in Watford. I advanced there the idea of simultaneous submissions - to my surprise the other participants joined up in a chorus of disapproval: 'if you do that you are going to be blacklisted'. I simply replied saying that this should be the editors' problem not mine - we live in the information era of the twenty-first century. After all if every author decides to abandon the irrational fear of being blacklisted and goes ahead with multiple simultaneous submissions, the journals have no power to stop this phenomenon (they cannot afford to blacklist everyone:) The subsequent increased flow of manuscripts via multiple submissions would increase the workload of both journal staff and reviewers. This is not necessarily a bad or insurmountable problem. For example if journals charge authors an acceptable fee (according to pre-set specific criteria) in order to somehow remunerate the reviewers, the end result could potentially be a careful author self-scrutiny of own work prior to submission and the emergence of a larger pool of reviewers. adrian32xj6@yahoo.com Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alexander C. Tsai, Medical Student Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio USA 44106-2459
Send response to journal:
|
Torgerson and colleagues suggest that journals ought to permit authors to submit to multiple journals concurrently, arguing that the process of sequential submission introduces unnecessary delays in the time to publication. If efficiency were to be the sole criterion, however, a more satisfactory publication process might be similar to the U.S. National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) (1-2). Authors would rank journals in order of publication preference, paying a fee for each journal at which they would like to be under consideration for publication. Journals would rank manuscripts in order of publication preference. The journal article match could be held on a regular (monthly, quarterly) basis. 1. Roth AE. The origins, history, and design of the resident match. JAMA 2003;289:909-912. 2. Chae SH. Is the match illegal? NEJM 2003;348:352-6. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jutta Loeffler, Postdoc Rockefeller University, New York
Send response to journal:
|
The idea to submit to several journals at once is being brought up by my colleagues and friends each time a review process seems to be particularly lengthy. I wonder, however, if in the case of my kind of research, both or all submissions wouldn't end up on the same reviewer's desk anyway? I would like to propose to journal's editors to send out reviews to younger scientists, postdocs, who have published a certain number of papers themselves. Speaking for myself, I am still quite flattered if I get to review a paper, which doesn't happen very often. And I am trying to handle the review as I would like others to handle mine, with expediency. Professors, heads of labs or departments, have so many other things to attend to that they may simply forget about a manuscript at the bottom of the pile (yes, I have seen that!). Competing interests: would like to get papers published fast |
|||
|
|
|||
|
S Anuradha, MPH Student Cardiff University, CF14 4XN
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor I fully commend the debate raised by Torgerson et al1 on a topic that deserves much attention but has been neglected so far. However I differ slightly from the author’s viewpoint. Undoubtedly, there are several problems that need to be addressed while considering the concept of multiple submissions. The existing system of different impact factors and different response times for journals may only confuse authors more with regards to submission. Reviewing an article is a highly regarded voluntary effort of the academic world. Multiple submissions may increase the workload of reviewers, thereby compromising quality and quantity of reviewers. At the same time, remunerating the review work may prove an insult to years of ingenious efforts on the part of the reviewers. It may also put undue pressure on poorly funded organisations, particularly from the developing world as the reviewer fee would have to be discreetly borne by the researcher. The solution lies in the researcher striking an acceptable balance with the journal editor. Journals demand a set format to be followed to the letter in their instructions to authors. The authors ,whilst keeping up to their demands should at least have the right to know how long it would be before they are informed of the fate of the article. It is understandably quite tedious to speed up the reviewing process. But setting uniform and acceptable guidelines about the time editors can take to respond might be more reassuring to researchers. After all, journals do have a responsibility as well towards their contributors without whom they may not thrive. 1. Torgerson DJ, Joy Adamson, Sarah Cockayne, Jo Dumville, and Emily Petherick.Submission to multiple journals: a method of reducing time to publication? BMJ 2005;330:305-7. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ramaswamy. Subramanian, Professor & Head, Department of Pharmacology, Aarupadai Veedu medical College, Pondicherry 607 402, India, Thulasimani ,M
Send response to journal:
|
We read with intrest this article and at last the hidden practice is brought to lime light for betterment. Currently, in contrast to earlier, a number of new journals are available for researchers to publish. A research project is consdered complete unless documented. Sincere reserchers, both young and experienced, promptly write their findings and submit early so as to reach scientists. Many journals somehow reply " Though the article is worth publishing, does not reach priority level for publication" - even when the journal selected is relevant for publication and favourable reports from the reviwers. Also the editor adds a note that the issue is closed and not open for discussion therby curtailing the freedom of authors. It is high time the journals should give a clear reply, mainly based on reviewers comments. If the editor considers the article does not fall within the priority level of the journal, need not be reviewed and the article be sent back to the authors to save time. No doubt the authors should also be careful in identifying the journal and do not involve in unethical practice intentionally. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Assistant Professor Department of Anaesthesiology, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology,, Trivandrum-695011, Keral, India
Send response to journal:
|
It is really interesting and mind boggling to read the article by Torgerson DJ et al and they should be congratulated for their efforts to bring the topic for the debate. I guess the article gives few answers than raising many questions on the issue. For example: 1. To how many journals are you allowed to submit the article and who will decide the number of simultaneous submissions – the authors (whose article is at stake!) or the Journal (on whose cost authors are playing!)? 2. In the event of simultaneous acceptance by many journals (which might happen if your article is really good), who will decide that the accepted article should remain with which journal – again the authors (who always want their article published in the best journal!) or again by the journals themselves (they might fight for the article if it is really worthy!)? 3. What would happen to low rated journals (they might lose the job! as they may not be getting the article in first place)? 4. If the article is rejected by all the journals where it was submitted, should the authors be allowed to resubmit it again simultaneously to a couple of journals again wasting the time of the whole scientific community apart from journal resources? I think multiple submission may not be an ideal way to deal with the problem of delay until all the issues related to it should be resolved. It needs further evaluation before being enforced. In my view one of the ways to reduce the time for publication is that, if any article is going to be rejected by a journal, the journal should have the responsibility to suggest to the authors which journal (2-3 journals in order of preference) they should send the article next. The suggestion should come after reviewing the article by panel of experts on the subject who have sound knowledge and expertise in guessing which journal the submitted article is most suitable for publication and most likely to be accepted. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adrian S Blaj, Psychiatrist London, England, Lucian Alexandrescu MD PhD, Consultant Psychiatrist, Bucharest
Send response to journal:
|
I think the multiple submission system is workable in the context of a radical overhaul and change of collective mentality. It would require (amongst other details): 1) electronic on-line submissions across the board 2) membership of authors to a Central Association of Authors (electronic database and annual membership subscription) 3) an International Association of Medical Journals with the central role - amongst others - of ensuring good inter-journals communication 4) a General Association of Peer Reviewers (preferably connected [reviewers] to the internet) The membership fee represents a serious problem for those authors who cannot afford it; however this problem is not entirely insurmountable as the collective pool of membership (state/drug companies subsidies as well?) might be able to absorb the costs (similar to insurance companies, etc). Furthermore many reviewers would not necessarily abandon their voluntary work and would continue to work for the principle itself. Also many other reviewers are authors themselves and therefore their fees would return back as membership fee. I am sure that there are many practical details to be sorted out; overall if this new concept of simultaneous multiple submissions takes off the ground, the end result would be satisfactory not only for all the parties involved but also for the patients who should be able to benefit much earlier from the results of medical advances. And perhaps, the access to information would be truly universal! adrian32xj6@yahoo.com Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
akhtar sherin, Executive editor JPMI, LRH, PGMI, Peshawar ,Pakistan
Send response to journal:
|
Below is an article submitted to diffrent journals in Paksitan and got puiblished....as . Mansoor Nadeem, M Ayub, M Naeem Khan, Farooq Khattak, Azmat Rashid, M Muzaffar, M Saleem. Lupus Anticoagulant as a cause of Stroke in young Adults J Rawal Med Coll Dec 1998;2(1-2):15-7. Military Hospital, Rawalpindi The lupus anticoagulant belongs to family of immunoglobulins and is most commonly an Ig G isotype. This antibody (LA) has been identified in association with thromboembolic disease. We studied 52 patients of both sexes presenting with stroke before the age of 45 years, for presence of lupus anticoagulant. These patients were subdivided into three age groups. Group I comprised of 16 patients between ages 18 and 25 years ( male 6; female 10) group 2 between 26 and 35 years (male 16; female 6), group 3 between age 36 and 45 years (male 12, female 2)Three female patients in group 1 and one male patient of group 2 showed positive test for lupus anticoagulant. Presence of LA was subsequently confirmed by platelet neutralization test. Screening for collagen vascular disease was negative in all of these cases. This study has shown that the problem of stroke in young adults is not very uncommon, as we have recorded 52 patients in 15 months time. Amongst our cases, 7.69% were found to have positive test for LA projecting its significance. In group 1, 62.5% of the patients were female signifying the fact that the females dominate younger age groups and as the age advances the male dominate. This may be due to difference in aetiology in different age and sex groups. This paper also presents details of result and pathophysiology of thromboembolism associated with LA. The same journal was published in another journal as below...... M Naeem Khan, Mansoor Nadeem, M Ayyub, M Farooq Khattak, M Anwar, Azmat Rashid, Karamat Ahmed Karamat. Lupus anticoagulant: A cause for stroke in young adults Pakistan J Pathol Jun 1999;10(1):4-6. Military Hospital Rawalpindi and AFIP, CMH Rawalpindi The lupus anticoagulant (LA) belongs to family of immunoglobulins, most commonly an IgG isotype. These antibodies have been identified in association with thromboembolic disease. We studied 52 patients of both sexes presenting with stroke before the age of 45 years for presence of lupus anticoagulant. Of these 24 were female and 28 were male. Computed tomography scan of skull was performed in every case and only the patients with thrombotic stroke were included in this study. Four (7.69%) of 52 patients were found to have positive test for LA which is a significant finding. Now question arises which journal will own this article??????? who will answer???? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
E Suresh, Specialist Registrar in Rheumatology Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU.
Send response to journal:
|
Sir, I read with interest the article by Torgerson et al. I agree that journals should not ‘sit on a paper’ for several months, but multiple submission may not be the best way to reduce publication delay. When a manuscript is rejected by a journal, it is either ‘rejected outright’ or ‘rejected after review’. When it is rejected outright, it usually means that the authors had selected a wrong journal in the first place to convey their message. When it is rejected after review, constructive comments are offered to improve the manuscript. The authors then try sequential submission. The manuscript improves with each submission as changes suggested by reviewers from the previous journal are incorporated, and ultimately the paper might get accepted. If the paper is simultaneously submitted to multiple journals, the authors are likely to re-submit the paper to the journal that requests the least revision ignoring reviewers’ comments from other journals. ‘Shooting in the dark’ to find out the journal that will offer the most favorable opinion will therefore only reduce the quality of published papers. Dr E Suresh Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Robert I. Rudolph, M.D., FACP, Clinical Professor of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA USA 1134 Penn Avenue, Wyomissing, PA 19610, USA
Send response to journal:
|
This article and its attendant Responses made me muse on "how things have changed" since I was a Dermatology Resident at Penn in the early '70's. When I (or my other Resident colleagues) wrote an article we submitted it to only one journal at a time - the one we felt would best suit the article's intent and readership. In those halcyon days it would have been sacrilegious and unthinkable for me to submit the article to several journals. It would have been considered very poor form to do so. And if "The Chief" ever found out about such a practice someone probably would have been eviscerated - or worse! If the article was rejected by my journal of choice, I simply sighed, accepted my fate, and resubmitted it to another one for consideration. Then I had a drink. Tant pis, indeed. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
waqas khan, Research fellow in cardiology South Manchester University Hospital NHS Trust, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester M23 9LT
Send response to journal:
|
I think the idea of multiple submissions is logical and needs implementation, atleast, on a small and controlled scale as outlined by the authors. This, yet again, highlights the importance of 'Academic Governance' to ensure far reaching reforms aiming to enhance the impact of new research on public health. While 'Research Governance' addresses the importance of high scientific and ethical standards in research activity, it does not issue guidance on the publication of research work.There is an urgent need to design new models of co-ordinated activity ensuring minimum time wasting before research work is published in the interest of, both, the patient and the researcher. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jerry George Mathew, Lecturer in anatomy Melaka Manipal Medical College (Manipal Campus)
Send response to journal:
|
Is there another core issue that is missed out in all of this debate? World-over, research is encouraged and often seen as a benchmark against which a faculty is judged. And that is a good thing. But I suspect that the great majority of faculty in medical schools are just fulfilling their quota of research to please those in authority and not for the betterment of humanity. Which brings me to the hurry in getting articles published. Again, this has become a competition to publish first. I ask, what is more important? That you or I publish first, or that we stimulate further discussion and research and welcomes the contributions of others to the research he is involved in. I fear we are entering or are already in an age when the research equals money and prestige. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Sara Black, Freelance writer London W4 1SD
Send response to journal:
|
Perhaps authors could continue to submit to one journal at a time but tell the reviewing journal that, if it hasn't made a decision or provided reviewers' comments within a certain time (say, 4-6 weeks), the authors will withdraw the article and submit it elsewhere. It seems to me that authors are too passive, waiting months for a response (perhaps occasionally phoning the journal office to find out what's happening). If it's important to get an article published quickly, then take control away from tardy journals! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Harvey Marcovitch, Free-lance medical editor (including BMJ Publishing Group) Honeysuckle House, Balscote OX15 6JW
Send response to journal:
|
None of the responses so far has mentioned readers. All have assumed the prime purpose of journals is to act as the final link in the research chain. As an ex-editor of a peer reviewed general clinical journal, I saw things differently: what I wanted to publish were useful messages, often wrapped up in scientific papers, for my readers to take home. This simple desire was frustrated by many things - the most blatant being its distortion by the system of impact factors and the dependence on them (at least in the UK)of the research assessment exercise. Thus, papers which would help my readers look after their patients better were frequently sent instead to journals with far fewer appropriately-targeted readers simply because the impact factor was higher. Researchers were, no doubt, satisfied with this but it performed a disservice to readers and to patients. Multiple submission would serve only to make this worse, as authors hurled themselves at a waterfall of journals with ever decreasing impact factors, regardless of their readership. It might, of course, pressure those journals which take far too long to process papers to perform more efficiently but the opposite side of this coin is that no editor takes as kindly to a paper when he knows he is the 6th on the list as when he is 1st or 2nd. One solution to authors' grievances is for journals to make as great a use as possible of instant rejection - easy with electronic submission. One rapid responder has presumably experienced this system and is distressed by being told a paper 'does not achieve priority.' But if a journal has room for only 10% of submmissions and 40% are publishable, what other way is there? Reviewers mostly work without reward so it would be unfair to use them solely to help an author rewrite his paper for another journal. Peer reviewers are there to help editors reach decisions. Editors and journals are not there to provide a rewriting service for authors. Perhaps the best international database, if we are to have one, would be that which tells us the median times for each journal to conduct each part of the submissions and publication process. Those authors who rate speed above appropriate readership would then know where to aim first. Competing interests: I provide editorial services for the BMJ Publishing Group and am vice-chair of the Committee On Publication Ethics - but these views are my own, not those of either organisation. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Tim Albert, Principal Tim Albert Training, 5 Cobham Road, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 9AU
Send response to journal:
|
Delays in publication, whatever the cause, distort science, depress readers and of course should be reduced wherever possible. But it is unfair to put all the blame on to editors. One of the great problems I constantly hear about during workshops is of senior co-authors insisting (often after a paper has been written for one journal) that they should submit to a journal with a higher impact factor ‘just in case’. So one obvious way of speeding up the process would be for authors to be far more rigorous about where they submit. Choosing a journal on the basis of objective information about what the journal does and does not seek to publish – and not on the basis of a vague wish to amass as many impact factor points as possible – would free up delays significantly. It would also produce huge savings of time that could be spent on something more productive than rewriting an article that has been sent to the ‘wrong’ journal. Competing interests: Tim Albert's livelihood depends on his being able to train authors to write efficiently |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Vance W Berger, Mathematical Statistician NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892
Send response to journal:
|
Torgerson et al. make a compelling case for the benefits of allowing for the simultaneous submission of manuscripts to multiple journals. The logical extension seems to be a single submission to a clearinghouse that can be accessed by all journals. This would then allow journals to bid on a manuscript, not with money, but rather with both expedience of publication and “closeness” of the submitted form to the published form. An author could then decide to make more changes and wait longer for submission in a more prestigious journal or to publish sooner, with minimal changes, in a less prestigious journal. If an open review system were used, as it is for BioMed Central journals, then it would be a simple matter for journals to share reviews, thereby avoiding the duplication of effort that might occur otherwise. The sharing of review would provide more than just efficiency, however. It would also alert the editors of all journals involved of any weaknesses in the manuscript so as to prevent the type of misleading situation that was recently described [1]. Specifically, a nonrandomized trial was labeled as randomized when submitted to one journal, and was rejected by that journal, with the comments to the authors including the issue that this was not in fact a randomized trial. This manuscript was then submitted to, and ultimately published by, a different journal. In published form, the manuscript still claimed that the trial was randomized, except the details in the text that would allow the reader to discern that the trial actually was not randomized were now removed. The reviewers from the first journal were bound by confidentiality not to reveal this duplicity. Multiple simultaneous submissions with shared reviews would have prevented this injustice. One other problem with the current system is that authors may need to format the manuscript multiple times to match the styles of each journal to which the manuscript is submitted [2]. Most notable among that which needs to be formatted would be the references, but also some journals allow for numbering of subsections and others do not. The research process could be made much more efficient if any changes specific to a given journal (but not to the overall quality of the manuscript) were to be made only once the manuscript were at least tentatively accepted. This step could certainly be introduced without multiple simultaneous submissions, but the two do seem to be naturally linked. References [1]. Berger VW, and Ioannidis, JPA, The Decameron of Poor Research, BMJ 2004;329:1436-1440. [2]. Rogers LF, Follow the Yellow Brick Road: Preparing a Manuscript for Submission to a Scientific Journal, American Journal of Roentgenology 2002;179(5):1099-1100. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr.Satheesha Nayak, Selection Grade Lecturer, Melaka Manipal Medical College (Manipal Campus) Manipal, Udupi District, Karnataka State, INDIA. 576104
Send response to journal:
|
All journals must allow the authors for simultaneous submission in other journals. This will help the authors to get their research work published rapidly and for the new researchers to get the latest in their field faster. Submission to multiple journals also increases the speed of responses by the referees and the editors to the authors. The journal which publishes the papers faster will get the quality articles. After all, what is wrong in submission to multiple journals? Actually, the paper should go through the review and editorial process first and only then the agreement has to be signed by the authors. Most of the journals require the signatures of the authors while submitting the article and they keep the articles with them for months. If the authors are asked to sign the agreement forms only when the article gets acceptance, as done by some journals, it would help both the authors and readers. This will improve the journals also. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bolajoko O. Olusanya, Research Fellow Institute of Child Health and Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, London WC1N 1EH
Send response to journal:
|
One option open to authors to minimise delay in publication is through preliminary enquiry with the editor or editorial office (preferably by e-mail) to ascertain if a manuscript may be of interest to a journal before submission. This is particularly valuable when authors find that the subject of their article is rarely published although it falls within the published scope of the target journal. For instance, one would rarely find articles on neonatal screening for deafness in developing countries in journals that focus on international epidemiology or tropical medicine and on such occasion a preliminary enquiry may just be advisable. Although authors may be convinced that their work reflect an important subject-matter, editors still exercise the right to make a value judgement of what they consider to be of interest to their readers or subscribers for varied reasons. Submission of an abstract for preliminary consideration by the editor may be sufficient although some journals would consider the full manuscript of a short report for this purpose. Leading journals often screen papers based exclusively on the abstracts [1,2]. Authors therefore need to ensure that the abstract is precise, concise and yet comprehensive enough to reflect the content of the manuscript. A decision should ideally be available within a week either requesting the authors to submit the full manuscript formally for review or giving reasons why the article may not be of interest to the journal. And of course, the authors would recognise that an expression of interest prior to peer-review and final editorial decision is merely indicative and not a commitment to accept the manuscript. Authors prefer a rapid rejection if their article will not be published and should be sufficiently guided to appreciate the editors preference or priorities. Electronic communication between both parties is essential to make this process worthwhile. References 1. Groves T, Abbasi K. Screening research papers by reading abstracts. BMJ 2004;329:470-471 2. Schroter S, Barratt H. Editorial decision making based on abstracts. European Science Editing 2004;30:8-9. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter D Macdonald, consultant paediatrician Yorkhill Hospital, Glasow, G3 8SJ
Send response to journal:
|
Torgerson et al [1] highlight a widespread frustration. However their suggestions have potential to overload the system as I suspect the cartoon within their paper could easily beome submission reality. It is natural for the researcher to wish to reach a wide audience with his/her work and to offer a paper to a general journal first, a broad specialist journal second and a narrower subspecialist journal third. Simultaneous submission of the same paper to multiple journals, without other changes in the system, is only going to greatly increase the demands for reviewer time and introduce the ineffiency of having many more expert reviewers examining the same paper at the same time. If reviewers do consider a paper to be very important they will not know whether the journal will get the chance to act on their advice. This is not likely to encourage them to give high priority to the task of review. Within a publishing group such as the BMJ there is a very simple way of partly addressing this issue. I suggest that the BMJ publishing group consider all submissions as offered to the group as a whole. Papers could then be submitted to the appropriate specialist journal for review. If the editors and reviewers consider the paper to be valuable it could offered within the publishing group to either a more general or more subspecialist journal as appropriate without needing to repeat the review process. This model is already used by some academic meetings to decide which papers are presented to a plenary session and which are presented to one of a number of parallel subspecialist groups. I'm sure this process could ensure that research was published in an appropriate forum whilst saving the time of authors, editors and reviewers. Reference 1. Torgerson DJ, Adamson J, Cockayne S, Dumville J, Petherick E. Submission to multiple journals: a method of reducing time to publication? BMJ 2005; 330: 305-307 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
DENISE RAZZOUK, Psychiatrist Department of Psychiatry Federal University of Sao Paulo, R. Botucatu 740, 3º and Sao Paulo Brazil.
Send response to journal:
|
I strongly agree with Dr. Togerson. The process of peer review is highly inefficient and sometimes anti-scientific. Some journals are very efficacious and provide responses quickly but it is not the routine. I would highlight that the problem is not only about the lengthiness of time, but also about the quality of peer reviews. I mean, the comments and critics about our papers are sometimes unrealistic and I guess in these cases, that the peer reviewer did not really read the article. I have had the same experience described here with the slow process of submission. There are situations in which I have felt totally disrespected. Once I submitted my paper to a psychiatry journal (that impact factor was less than 1.0!) and they took more than 8 months to read my work. When I wrote to the editor to know the status of my paper, he said that he did not have a second peer reviewer to read my article, and the next month he rejected my paper with only one evaluation! Then, I submitted the same article to another journal with impact factor of 5.0 and they answered me within 3 months and accepted it! So, my suggesttion is to create an international committee of peer reviewers (they will analyze for more than one journal) and a group of editors to analyse one paper and then, if the publication is adequate, this committee will judge in which journal it will be published. Only two reviewers will read the paper and they will suggest the journals that are compatible. If there is more than one possibility and the editors are equally interested in the paper, the author will make the choice. In other words, the author will submit the article to a "pool of journals" and if it is adequate to the pre-requisites of one or more journals it will be suggested to authors to choose the journal they want to publish in. razzouk@psiquiatria.epm.br Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Marge Berer, Editor Reproductive Health Matters
Send response to journal:
|
Torgenson et al raise an important problem for authors who have to wait long periods of time before they learn whether their papers are accepted or rejected, and then have to submit to further journals if their papers are rejected. Their proposal of submission to multiple journals focuses only on the problem of time lost due to rejection.Whathappens if authors submit their paper as proposed and two or even more journals all accept it? Which acceptance takes precedence? This apparently wonderful outcome for the author would not, in my view, lead to healthy competition, but rather a great deal of difficulty. Would the first journal to accept the paper get precedence, or would it be up to the author to decide which journal he/she preferred to publish it? Either way, editors who lost out, having put the time and effort into peer review, would be rightly aggrieved. Furthermore, this implies a lot of wastage of peer reviewers' time, and good reviewers do not grow on trees. We need further thought on this problem. Competing interests: None declared |
|||