Information Overload

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Did you know that there are around 180 dental journals published globally? Of these, only 54 (28%) are listed on the ISI Web of Knowledge and have a listed “impact factor”. For those of you who are not familiar with such ranking of journals, an impact factor relates to the number of times articles published in a given journal are cited in other published papers over a two-year period. It is considered a crude measure of the journal’s prestige and ranking within a given field. We have always been pleased to note that the Australian Dental Journal appears in these rankings. With this in mind I was bemused to note recently that yet another dental journal had been launched. What was even more intriguing is that it is to be published by one of the largest medical/dental publishers in the world. This particular new journal “aims to publish quality, peer reviewed original research and topical reviews on all aspects of investigative and clinical dentistry and craniofacial research, including molecular studies related to oral health and disease.” Sounds familiar to me – the only difference is that this journal “especially encourages papers from the Asia Pacific”. As if we don’t already have enough journals and papers being published, now one publisher is seeking even more in what is already a saturated market. This has led me to ponder just what is the point of more dental journals and what is the likely effect of this? Unlike most of our readers, I have access to a very wide array of scholarly journals and publications. However, not withstanding this, many journals are not easily accessible and so the usefulness of these publications and their content could be questioned. For example, the other day I was working on writing a review paper dealing with the physiological processes involved in pathological bone loss associated with periodontal disease. While this may seem like an esoteric issue for some, the point of the paper was to consider our current knowledge and how this is going to impact on current treatments and future development of drugs as adjuncts to periodontal treatment. To me, all important stuff. However, when doing the review I found a number of papers which were of potential interest but published in “obscure” or unavailable journals. This got me thinking as to what was the reason for these publications and what was their use if they cannot be widely accessed? This, together with the arrival on my desk of the announcement of a new dental journal, makes me feel that dental publishing has lost its way. Rather than consolidating what is already available and ensuring that quality, not quantity, is the modus operandi for publishing dental research (clinical and scientific) we find ourselves overwhelmed with information – 72% of which is largely inaccessible! There is no doubt that at least in the next 5–10 years this new journal will fall within the 72% as it will not be purchased by libraries and because it does not have an “impact factor” will not be listed in mainstream databases such as PubMed and ISI Web of Science. So while a new journal may satisfy, to a point, the “publish or perish” mentality of some dental researchers, the value of publishing in such a journal must remain questionable. It is therefore my belief that what we need is less dental journals – not more. P Mark BartoldEditor