Spread the Word About the Journal in 2012: From Impact Factor to Plagiarism and Image Falsification Detection Software

Abstract

At least once a year, the Editorial Leadership Team of the Journal meets to discuss the status of the Journal and to evaluate how well we have carried out the action items from our last strategic planning meeting that constitute our plans for the given year. In this report, we summarize the presentations, discussions, and deliberations that took place during the Associate Editors' Meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii, at CHEST 2011.We are pleased to report that by all accounts the Journal enjoyed many successes in 2011. The path set forth during our August 2010 strategic planning meeting required that we target new efforts along four key themes. These themes are (1) raising the quality of the science and the clinical relevance of the articles published in CHEST, (2) increasing awareness of the Journal and driving traffic to our Web site, (3) improving reader experience, and (4) maintaining a strong financial base. Data that we have compiled reflect improvements across all areas.Illustrating the improvements in scientific and clinical articles, CHEST's impact factor continues to rise (Fig 1). Compared with last year,1Irwin RS Augustyn N Editorial Leadership Team The journal and 2011: a time for stocktaking.Chest. 2011; 139: 2-5Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar the impact factor of CHEST rose from 6.36 to 6.519, maintaining the rank of third among 46 journals in the respiratory category according to the most recent Journal Citation Report2Journal Citation Reports Thomson Reuters, New York, NY2011http://www.isiknowledge.com/jcrGoogle Scholar published by Thomson Reuters (formerly ISI Web of Knowledge). Although the impact factor of 6.519 places us in third place, CHEST is only 0.006 points away from the second-ranked journal. The increase in the quality of submissions to CHEST can also be gleaned from the recent rise in the acceptance rate for original research: 2010 saw the highest acceptance rate (15%) in the past 6 years despite using the same rigorous and critical acceptance criteria. Moreover, a recent survey3The Matalia Group, Inc. Essential Journal Study-II: Specialty: Pulmonology. The Matalia Group, Inc., Kulpsville, PAOctober 2011Google Scholar again ranked CHEST as the number one most essential journal for US clinicians in pulmonary medicine.With respect to raising awareness of the Journal and driving traffic to our Web site, we strove to engage new audiences through the special series published in CHEST. Accordingly, in 2011, we introduced a new series entitled “Ahead of the Curve” to offer our readers an edge in anticipating the fast-changing medical environment,4Moss J Ahead of the curve.Chest. 2011; 140: 275-276Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar renamed the “Transparency in Health Care” section “Patient Safety Forum” to more clearly convey the mission of the series to readers, and increased the number of “Point/Counterpoint Editorials” published. Further, the debates begun in the “Point/Counterpoint Editorials” series do not end on the printed page; selected authors from the series participate in an established Journal-sponsored pro/con debate session at the annual CHEST meeting. As outreach to potential authors, we distributed and published the “Top Ten Reasons to Submit to CHEST,” now updated in Figure 2.1Irwin RS Augustyn N Editorial Leadership Team The journal and 2011: a time for stocktaking.Chest. 2011; 139: 2-5Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar In 2011, CHEST received nearly 3,500 submissions, our largest number to date, with > 60% coming from outside North America. This new record total suggests that we have not merely increased the awareness of the Journal among researchers and authors, but also conveyed its appropriateness as a home for cutting-edge research. We thank all those who submit their work to CHEST; we are grateful to see your best studies and hope that you will continue to see CHEST as an outstanding platform for reaching the respiratory medicine community. Despite the increased number of submissions, we have been able to maintain excellent turnaround times, including average peer-review times from submission to first decision of 15 days and time to final decision of 22 days, and an average time from acceptance to in-press posting online of 2 weeks for original research. Lastly, by harnessing social media platforms such as Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/accpchest) and Twitter (http://twitter.com/accpchest), and by taking advantage of other communication outlets used by the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), we can broadcast our offerings to a new segment of readers. Moreover, we believe that our international editions of the Journal (eg, in Brazil, China, India, Italy, the Middle East, and Spain), which reproduce and distribute articles published in CHEST that are deemed of particular importance to specific regions, also contribute to building relationships with our international readership.Figure 2Top ten reasons to submit to CHEST. This list has been modified from the original published in 2011.1Irwin RS Augustyn N Editorial Leadership Team The journal and 2011: a time for stocktaking.Chest. 2011; 139: 2-5Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5) Google ScholarView Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)We took a multipronged approach to improving reader experience. In the realm of mobile, we have launched the CHEST Journal app (Fig 3)—now approaching 30,000 downloads—for the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch, and streamlined the CHEST Web site for Web-enabled smartphones. Improvements in the presentation of clinical practice guidelines will be revealed with the forthcoming publication of the Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (9th Edition). We created and launched a monthly author interview podcast series under the stewardship of D. Kyle Hogarth, MD, FCCP. The podcasts are now available in each issue of CHEST and at iTunes (http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/chest-journal-podcasts/id431679879). Finally, although we set out to begin publishing a brief article summary with all original research articles that would provide readers with a snapshot of the article through the author-supplied answers to two prompts (ie, “How does this study advance the field?” and “What are the clinical implications?”), we abandoned this idea in August 2011, one month after launch, because too many authors were making unsupported claims about the importance or uniqueness of their research findings.Figure 3CHEST Journal app. A, iPad table of contents view. B, iPad figure viewer screen.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)As to maintaining a strong financial base, we have been successful in using a diversified approach. Through subscriptions; print, online, and classified advertising; reprints; licensing; article pay-per-view; and open-access fees, we have been able to create a positive bottom line that has allowed the Journal to support both the implementation of creative ideas and the educational mission of the ACCP.After recapping the highlights of the Journal's successes of 2011, we spent the remainder of the meeting deliberating over multiple changes for 2012. Because of the time and effort involved in developing and creating animated reviews, we have decided to retire the series “Interactive Physiology Grand Rounds,” and we thank Michael J. Parker, MD, and Richard M. Schwartzstein, MD, FCCP, for their outstanding efforts. We affirmed our pursuit of a video series but will work toward a modified format that will allow for an increase in published videos and ensure that we are meeting the content needs of our readers. We welcome Ian Nathanson, MD, FCCP, in the new role of Section Editor of Guidelines and Consensus Statements. He will assist in reviewing all ACCP and other evidence-based medicine process articles, guidelines, and consensus statements that are submitted to CHEST.In the spirit of better scientific clarity and consistency, and international and multispecialty cooperation, CHEST and many other respiratory journals will be adopting the following disease name change policy starting January 1, 2012: “granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Wegener)” will replace “Wegener granulomatosis.” This decision follows action taken on March 3, 2011, by the American College of Rheumatology, the American Society of Nephrology, and the European League Against Rheumatism. These organizations adopted the new terminology based on the recommendations of a panel of international experts in the field of vasculitis that had a goal of shifting disease designations away from honorific eponyms to more accurate descriptive or cause-based nomenclature for the vasculitides. This group further recommended that the parenthetic term “(Wegener)” be maintained for several years “to help smooth the adoption of the new name, avoid confusion in the medical literature, and facilitate electronic searches.”5Falk RJ Gross WL Guillevin L American College of Rheumatology American Society of Nephrology European League Against Rheumatism et al.Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Wegener's): an alternative name for Wegener's granulomatosis.Arthritis Rheum. 2011; 63: 863-864Crossref PubMed Scopus (216) Google Scholar In our publications, the parenthetic term “(Wegener)” will be dropped after its first mention in an article.To continue to maintain the trust that our readers have that we are acting faithfully, competently, and honestly in our obligation to publish the truth,6Irwin RS The role of conflict of interest in reporting of scientific information.Chest. 2009; 136: 253-259Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar we are continuing in our attempts to mitigate conflict of interest in the reporting of scientific information because we realize that such conflicts remain a problem. In this regard, we have incorporated two new software programs into the peer-review process: A plagiarism identification program automatically checks manuscripts, and figures are analyzed with image forensics software that can detect image manipulation that may point to scientific misconduct. Authors are encouraged to read our “Instructions to Authors” (http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml) to learn what types of image manipulation are acceptable. Although duplicate publications are a form of self-plagiarism, any reuse of nearly identical or identical parts of one's own work without citing or acknowledging the original work is also considered self-plagiarism7Scanlon PM Song from myself: an anatomy of self-plagiarism.Plagiary. 2007; 2: 57-66Google Scholar; it is frowned upon and will be picked up by the software. While self-plagiarism does not represent intellectual theft of another's ideas or work, it qualifies as being dishonest8Resnik DB Postscript: toward a more ethical science.in: Resnik DB The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. Routledge, London, England1998: 177Google Scholar and will not be permitted.In summary, the quality of manuscripts that are submitted to and published in CHEST is improving. We are reaching new audiences and strengthening our global audience through online improvements, the use of social media, new mobile formats, and local editions. We have been able to do all these things and still maintain a strong and diverse financial base. In response to the impact of changes that we have made in the past and developments in the general scholarly environment, we have identified a new trajectory for some of our special series and introduced enhancements to our review process, including the use of plagiarism identification software and image forensics. The Journal continues to evolve. Please spread the word! At least once a year, the Editorial Leadership Team of the Journal meets to discuss the status of the Journal and to evaluate how well we have carried out the action items from our last strategic planning meeting that constitute our plans for the given year. In this report, we summarize the presentations, discussions, and deliberations that took place during the Associate Editors' Meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii, at CHEST 2011. We are pleased to report that by all accounts the Journal enjoyed many successes in 2011. The path set forth during our August 2010 strategic planning meeting required that we target new efforts along four key themes. These themes are (1) raising the quality of the science and the clinical relevance of the articles published in CHEST, (2) increasing awareness of the Journal and driving traffic to our Web site, (3) improving reader experience, and (4) maintaining a strong financial base. Data that we have compiled reflect improvements across all areas. Illustrating the improvements in scientific and clinical articles, CHEST's impact factor continues to rise (Fig 1). Compared with last year,1Irwin RS Augustyn N Editorial Leadership Team The journal and 2011: a time for stocktaking.Chest. 2011; 139: 2-5Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar the impact factor of CHEST rose from 6.36 to 6.519, maintaining the rank of third among 46 journals in the respiratory category according to the most recent Journal Citation Report2Journal Citation Reports Thomson Reuters, New York, NY2011http://www.isiknowledge.com/jcrGoogle Scholar published by Thomson Reuters (formerly ISI Web of Knowledge). Although the impact factor of 6.519 places us in third place, CHEST is only 0.006 points away from the second-ranked journal. The increase in the quality of submissions to CHEST can also be gleaned from the recent rise in the acceptance rate for original research: 2010 saw the highest acceptance rate (15%) in the past 6 years despite using the same rigorous and critical acceptance criteria. Moreover, a recent survey3The Matalia Group, Inc. Essential Journal Study-II: Specialty: Pulmonology. The Matalia Group, Inc., Kulpsville, PAOctober 2011Google Scholar again ranked CHEST as the number one most essential journal for US clinicians in pulmonary medicine. With respect to raising awareness of the Journal and driving traffic to our Web site, we strove to engage new audiences through the special series published in CHEST. Accordingly, in 2011, we introduced a new series entitled “Ahead of the Curve” to offer our readers an edge in anticipating the fast-changing medical environment,4Moss J Ahead of the curve.Chest. 2011; 140: 275-276Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar renamed the “Transparency in Health Care” section “Patient Safety Forum” to more clearly convey the mission of the series to readers, and increased the number of “Point/Counterpoint Editorials” published. Further, the debates begun in the “Point/Counterpoint Editorials” series do not end on the printed page; selected authors from the series participate in an established Journal-sponsored pro/con debate session at the annual CHEST meeting. As outreach to potential authors, we distributed and published the “Top Ten Reasons to Submit to CHEST,” now updated in Figure 2.1Irwin RS Augustyn N Editorial Leadership Team The journal and 2011: a time for stocktaking.Chest. 2011; 139: 2-5Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar In 2011, CHEST received nearly 3,500 submissions, our largest number to date, with > 60% coming from outside North America. This new record total suggests that we have not merely increased the awareness of the Journal among researchers and authors, but also conveyed its appropriateness as a home for cutting-edge research. We thank all those who submit their work to CHEST; we are grateful to see your best studies and hope that you will continue to see CHEST as an outstanding platform for reaching the respiratory medicine community. Despite the increased number of submissions, we have been able to maintain excellent turnaround times, including average peer-review times from submission to first decision of 15 days and time to final decision of 22 days, and an average time from acceptance to in-press posting online of 2 weeks for original research. Lastly, by harnessing social media platforms such as Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/accpchest) and Twitter (http://twitter.com/accpchest), and by taking advantage of other communication outlets used by the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), we can broadcast our offerings to a new segment of readers. Moreover, we believe that our international editions of the Journal (eg, in Brazil, China, India, Italy, the Middle East, and Spain), which reproduce and distribute articles published in CHEST that are deemed of particular importance to specific regions, also contribute to building relationships with our international readership. We took a multipronged approach to improving reader experience. In the realm of mobile, we have launched the CHEST Journal app (Fig 3)—now approaching 30,000 downloads—for the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch, and streamlined the CHEST Web site for Web-enabled smartphones. Improvements in the presentation of clinical practice guidelines will be revealed with the forthcoming publication of the Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (9th Edition). We created and launched a monthly author interview podcast series under the stewardship of D. Kyle Hogarth, MD, FCCP. The podcasts are now available in each issue of CHEST and at iTunes (http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/chest-journal-podcasts/id431679879). Finally, although we set out to begin publishing a brief article summary with all original research articles that would provide readers with a snapshot of the article through the author-supplied answers to two prompts (ie, “How does this study advance the field?” and “What are the clinical implications?”), we abandoned this idea in August 2011, one month after launch, because too many authors were making unsupported claims about the importance or uniqueness of their research findings. As to maintaining a strong financial base, we have been successful in using a diversified approach. Through subscriptions; print, online, and classified advertising; reprints; licensing; article pay-per-view; and open-access fees, we have been able to create a positive bottom line that has allowed the Journal to support both the implementation of creative ideas and the educational mission of the ACCP. After recapping the highlights of the Journal's successes of 2011, we spent the remainder of the meeting deliberating over multiple changes for 2012. Because of the time and effort involved in developing and creating animated reviews, we have decided to retire the series “Interactive Physiology Grand Rounds,” and we thank Michael J. Parker, MD, and Richard M. Schwartzstein, MD, FCCP, for their outstanding efforts. We affirmed our pursuit of a video series but will work toward a modified format that will allow for an increase in published videos and ensure that we are meeting the content needs of our readers. We welcome Ian Nathanson, MD, FCCP, in the new role of Section Editor of Guidelines and Consensus Statements. He will assist in reviewing all ACCP and other evidence-based medicine process articles, guidelines, and consensus statements that are submitted to CHEST. In the spirit of better scientific clarity and consistency, and international and multispecialty cooperation, CHEST and many other respiratory journals will be adopting the following disease name change policy starting January 1, 2012: “granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Wegener)” will replace “Wegener granulomatosis.” This decision follows action taken on March 3, 2011, by the American College of Rheumatology, the American Society of Nephrology, and the European League Against Rheumatism. These organizations adopted the new terminology based on the recommendations of a panel of international experts in the field of vasculitis that had a goal of shifting disease designations away from honorific eponyms to more accurate descriptive or cause-based nomenclature for the vasculitides. This group further recommended that the parenthetic term “(Wegener)” be maintained for several years “to help smooth the adoption of the new name, avoid confusion in the medical literature, and facilitate electronic searches.”5Falk RJ Gross WL Guillevin L American College of Rheumatology American Society of Nephrology European League Against Rheumatism et al.Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Wegener's): an alternative name for Wegener's granulomatosis.Arthritis Rheum. 2011; 63: 863-864Crossref PubMed Scopus (216) Google Scholar In our publications, the parenthetic term “(Wegener)” will be dropped after its first mention in an article. To continue to maintain the trust that our readers have that we are acting faithfully, competently, and honestly in our obligation to publish the truth,6Irwin RS The role of conflict of interest in reporting of scientific information.Chest. 2009; 136: 253-259Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar we are continuing in our attempts to mitigate conflict of interest in the reporting of scientific information because we realize that such conflicts remain a problem. In this regard, we have incorporated two new software programs into the peer-review process: A plagiarism identification program automatically checks manuscripts, and figures are analyzed with image forensics software that can detect image manipulation that may point to scientific misconduct. Authors are encouraged to read our “Instructions to Authors” (http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml) to learn what types of image manipulation are acceptable. Although duplicate publications are a form of self-plagiarism, any reuse of nearly identical or identical parts of one's own work without citing or acknowledging the original work is also considered self-plagiarism7Scanlon PM Song from myself: an anatomy of self-plagiarism.Plagiary. 2007; 2: 57-66Google Scholar; it is frowned upon and will be picked up by the software. While self-plagiarism does not represent intellectual theft of another's ideas or work, it qualifies as being dishonest8Resnik DB Postscript: toward a more ethical science.in: Resnik DB The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. Routledge, London, England1998: 177Google Scholar and will not be permitted. In summary, the quality of manuscripts that are submitted to and published in CHEST is improving. We are reaching new audiences and strengthening our global audience through online improvements, the use of social media, new mobile formats, and local editions. We have been able to do all these things and still maintain a strong and diverse financial base. In response to the impact of changes that we have made in the past and developments in the general scholarly environment, we have identified a new trajectory for some of our special series and introduced enhancements to our review process, including the use of plagiarism identification software and image forensics. The Journal continues to evolve. Please spread the word!