Journal Combat

“Publish or perish” is the time-honored “principle” that is drummed into all young academicians at the start of their careers and haunts their lives as they race to accumulate lines under the section “publications” on a curriculum vitae. ^1–5 Originally, the publication of scholarly activity was meant to inform others of findings and thereby further the knowledge of scientists generally. ^2,5 Unfortunately, that goal, which began in 1665 with the first scientific journal (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London), has been corrupted over the past half century. Many factors have contributed to this perversion, but major among them are (1) the exponential growth of journals and the journal industry, ^6–8 (2) the adoption of journal metrics as the measure of quality rather than the written content of the article, ^{9 –27} and (3) the intrusion of the Internet into all aspects of academic life. ^28–30

Until the second half of the 20th century, most of the important journals in what is now categorized as “science, technology, and medicine” (STM is the abbreviation used by the publishing industry) were the organs of major societies or associations and sometimes were even published by those organizations. To be an editor of such a publication was an honor (and generally unpaid or with only a minimal stipend to cover expenses) and manuscript submissions were reviewed by peers who gladly donated their time and expertise to assure the integrity of the publication. However, with the acceleration of technological innovation and scientific and medical discovery that marked the second half of the 20th century, journals through their advertising and subscription revenues became major sources of funding for many organizations. Smaller or developing organizations viewed journals as a means for sustaining financial viability, while at the same time, journals unaffiliated with any society or association proliferated exponentially.

To maintain the original purpose of journals (to disseminate useful information for other scientists, engineers, or physicians) indexing was necessary for the growing volume of journal articles published annually. ^2,5 This resulted in 2 classes of journals: those that were indexed by major indexing services and those that were not indexed (more like “vanity” publishing, often with a “pay for publication” stratagem). For biomedical journals, indexing in the National Library of Medicine Index Medicus (or the digital version Medline, which is now PubMed) became the distinguishing characteristic of the important peer-reviewed journal. ^2,5 To be indexed by the National Library of Medicine, a publication undergoes evaluation by a panel of expert reviewers, who assess the quality of articles and the peer review process used by the journal, scientific stature of the editor and editorial board members, and timeliness of publication.

With the increased revenues and competition accompanying journal proliferation, journal management became so complex that most journals were taken over by the large consolidated publishing companies, which could use consortium deals to assure circulation numbers and to capture the full capabilities of the Internet to disseminate materials. Libraries (and individual subscribers) have been overwhelmed with the sheer volume of material to be perused for useful content. With library budgets unable to sustain the costs of increasing numbers of journals and increasing journal subscription prices, librarians have looked for ways to limit the number of journal subscriptions. ^31–33 In 1955, Eugene Garfield, a library scientist and structural linguist from the University of Pennsylvania, had developed a metric that he termed impact factor to select journals for inclusion in his initial publication (Genetics Citation Index, which was the forerunner of his later Science Citation Index). ^5,34–37 This impact factor number calculated “based on 2 elements: the numerator, which is the number of citations in the current year to any items published in a journal in the previous 2 years, and the denominator, which is the number of substantive articles (source items) published in the same 2 years” seemed to be a reasonable measure for librarians navigating through budget crises to use in prioritizing their journal subscription lists. This led publishing companies to put greater emphasis on boosting journal impact factors in order to ensure continuing subscriptions. The resultant changes in editorial practices at many journals and the maneuvering by publishers to adjust article designations (to alter the numbers in the ratio used to calculate the impact factor) produced considerable controversy. ^{5,10,11,38–46} At the same time, gullible administrators and government agencies were persuaded that the impact factor of the journal in which materials were published could also be used as a measure of the worth of individual investigators (and institutions) and their research efforts: A simple number could be substituted for the time and effort required to read and assess research quality. ^{9 –27,38–56} Thus, the granting of research funds, the awarding of promotion and tenure, and the determination of salaries have often been based on these impact factor values. In some instances, bonus payments nearly equal to a full year salary can be obtained simply through authoring an article in a journal with a high impact factor, regardless of the significance or quality of the reported research. Therefore, it is no wonder that the integrity of science is more often being questioned and that there has been heightened scrutiny of published literature along with a dramatic rise in the number of articles that must be retracted (Figure 1). ^57–66

Figure 1.

The nearly exponential increase in numbers of articles (published from 2000 to 2010 in the scientific literature) that have subsequently been retracted. Data obtained using the term “Retraction of” in an August 2011 search of the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge database (http://www.isiwebofknowledge.com).

So, where does this leave a journal such as the Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (JEBCAM), which publishes in a field with many controversial health care approaches? Ethical and uncompromising peer review processes and conscientious and honest editorial board members are critical elements in assuring a respected and high-quality biomedical journal. However, any new journal has great difficulty obtaining the recognition necessary to acquire worthwhile materials for publication. Few authors are willing to risk submitting materials to a journal without a track record, because the journal might not be viable (this is especially true with the proliferation of “Web only” publications). ⁶⁷ Although there is a track record (albeit uneven) for its previous incarnations (as Alternative Health Practitioner and Complementary Health Practice Review), JEBCAM itself is new and must establish its own identity. The initial step to overcome this shortcoming has been for JEBCAM to publish on time journal issues consisting mostly of a series of high-quality topical review articles. For the initial 3-issue volume in 2011, JEBCAM has contained mostly topical review articles on a variety of dietary nutrients. ^68–85 Sprinkled throughout the issues have been a few original articles that passed peer review, ^86–90 a special article providing a controversial viewpoint, ⁹¹ a historical piece, ⁹² an editorial, ⁹³ and several book reviews. ^94–100 Continuing this approach in the volume to be published in 2012 will produce the 2 years of success necessary to apply for inclusion in the PubMed database, which would alleviate the concern that prevents some investigators from submitting materials to JEBCAM. Nonetheless, despite the lack of current indexing in PubMed, materials published in JEBCAM are still widely disseminated. All articles in JEBCAM (and its predecessors) are available as “PDF” files on the “SAGE journals online” Web site (http://chp.sagepub.com/), which is hosted by the HighWire Press division of Stanford University Libraries (http://highwire.stanford.edu/). HighWire hosts more than 1300 journals (including those from other publishers such as the American Medical Association, the BMJ Group, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Oxford University Press, Rockefeller University Press, and Royal Society of Medicine Press) and has cross-referencing of citations that provides visibility for JEBCAM articles. Indexing by Google Scholar also assures visibility for the published JEBCAM materials. In addition, despite the current devotion of many administrators to the impact factor as a measure of research quality, increasing controversy surrounding this proprietary product of the media conglomerate Thomson Reuters has fueled development of alternative measures. Many of these new measures can be derived using free online tools developed to work with Google Scholar, providing analyses that more accurately reflect the quality and importance of individual research studies, investigators, and institutions, including works that are published in journals such as JEBCAM. ^101–105