Publishing Biomedical Research: Roles and Responsibilities

Abstract

Authors, reviewers, and editors have critical responsibilities to ensure the validity and utility of published biomedical research. Publication of the results of biomedical research in scientific journals is not a mere formality or epiphenomenon in science. It is the culmination of the long process of scientific research, in a sense the fruits of the research. It is the means by which a laboratory scientist or clinical investigator gives a definitive accounting of his work to his peers, thus enabling them to judge its significance, confirm it, test its applicability to their own studies and, if it is found acceptable, to incorporate the work into the growing body of knowledge that constitutes the current understanding of a given field. Collectively, published research reports define the content of a scientific discipline and record its evolution. Without a published record, science simply could not function. A scientist's publications stand as a permanent record of his personal contribution. They largely determine his reputation and the advancement of his career. Appointments, promotions, awards, and research grants all hinge on the quality and quantity of his publications. The resulting "publish or perish" imperative is easily understandable, but it has unfortunate consequences that will be discussed in more detail below. The public also has a major stake in scientific publications. Journal articles are an important-probably the most important-source of stories in the popular media about new developments in biomedical science. With the help of the authors and other experts, reporters interpret journal articles for the general public. The public appetite for medical news seems insatiable, and new developments in medicine are often treated in the media as major news events. Assuming that the work is accurately reported by the media, its publication in a reputable scientific journal lends substance to the news story and ensures that the story is based on evidence judged by experts to be at least worthy of serious attention. That is no small benefit, given the frequency with which the public has been misled by premature or inaccurate scientific claims when the news has been released only through media channels without the careful scrutiny associated with journal publication. Editorial Peer Review Scientific reports submitted to the best scientific journals go through a process of evaluation, criticism, selection, and revision known as editorial peer review. Although the details vary among journals, the basic outlines of the process are generally similar. (1) Authors submit unsolicited reports of their research, prepared in a standard format that has been adopted by the great majority Of biomedical journals. The format ensures that all essential information will be reported, and it facilitates review, but it also inhibits freedom of stylistic expression and makes scientific papers more boring than they need be. The reports are initially screened by editors and those appropriate for further consideration are referred to outside experts for critical review. Aided by the advice of their referees, editors select those papers most likely to meet the journal's scientific standards, and ask the authors to revise their manuscripts to satisfy the reviewers' criticisms. After further review of the revised manuscript, a final decision is made by the editor. It usually takes about three to four months from submission to decide that a paper is finally acceptable, but less than half that time to reach a negative decision. In the course of this process, many submissions are eliminated. The most competitive peer-reviewed journals may accept fewer than a third or a quarter of the manuscripts they receive, but many other journals publish a much. larger fraction. Authors who persist in resubmitting their rejected manuscripts to other journals will usually succeed in getting their paper accepted somewhere, unless the manuscript is grossly unfit for publication. …