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.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
08 February 2005
Harvey Marcovitch
Free-lance medical editor (including BMJ Publishing Group)
Rapid Response:
What about the reader?
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.
Competing interests: No competing interests