The fear of scientific publishing

Abstract

It was a thought-provoking experience to read Dr Vinod Krishnan’s article entitled “Etiquette in scientific publishing” in the October 2013 issue (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:577-82). Having been in an academic position for more than 9 years, I was thoroughly impressed by its content. I commend the author for his efforts to highlight much-needed knowledge and perspective in scientific publishing.I believe that there are 2 worlds in scientific publishing. The author described the moral principles and foundation in scientific publishing in the outer world. Here, the regulatory bodies are taking an active role to make things better. I live in another world, with much uncertainty, and “profound plagiarism” is the mantra. The practice of “gift authorship” is the norm. There is a prevailing trend for quantity rather than quality in scientific publishing.Added to the surmounting problem is the launch of new local journals in print or digital open access. The rise of open-access journals has surely contributed to the existing unhealthy scenario in scientific publishing. Pressure on academics to publish leads to a culture of plagiarism. “Authors” find it easy to manipulate the content in open-access journals with no effective peer-review system. Recently, I received 2 manuscripts from 2 PubMed-indexed journals for review. To my dismay, I found that the articles had already been published elsewhere in open-access format. Since it was a blinded review, I was unaware of the details of authorship. Both fraudulence and plagiarism could have been possibilities.I feel I am in the same position today. My article, which can be accessed easily through the Internet, could be duplicated and published in another journal—without my knowledge or permission. Such an act discredits the merit of publishing and scientific advancement. The trend is fast growing and posing an alarming concern to the entire fraternity. I do fear where this will end. The ultimate purpose of scientific publishing in health care is to advance the fraternity and improve the quality of life of our patients. Can we stick to this? It was a thought-provoking experience to read Dr Vinod Krishnan’s article entitled “Etiquette in scientific publishing” in the October 2013 issue (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:577-82). Having been in an academic position for more than 9 years, I was thoroughly impressed by its content. I commend the author for his efforts to highlight much-needed knowledge and perspective in scientific publishing. I believe that there are 2 worlds in scientific publishing. The author described the moral principles and foundation in scientific publishing in the outer world. Here, the regulatory bodies are taking an active role to make things better. I live in another world, with much uncertainty, and “profound plagiarism” is the mantra. The practice of “gift authorship” is the norm. There is a prevailing trend for quantity rather than quality in scientific publishing. Added to the surmounting problem is the launch of new local journals in print or digital open access. The rise of open-access journals has surely contributed to the existing unhealthy scenario in scientific publishing. Pressure on academics to publish leads to a culture of plagiarism. “Authors” find it easy to manipulate the content in open-access journals with no effective peer-review system. Recently, I received 2 manuscripts from 2 PubMed-indexed journals for review. To my dismay, I found that the articles had already been published elsewhere in open-access format. Since it was a blinded review, I was unaware of the details of authorship. Both fraudulence and plagiarism could have been possibilities. I feel I am in the same position today. My article, which can be accessed easily through the Internet, could be duplicated and published in another journal—without my knowledge or permission. Such an act discredits the merit of publishing and scientific advancement. The trend is fast growing and posing an alarming concern to the entire fraternity. I do fear where this will end. The ultimate purpose of scientific publishing in health care is to advance the fraternity and improve the quality of life of our patients. Can we stick to this? Etiquette in scientific publishingAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 144Issue 4PreviewPublishing a scientific article in a journal with a high impact factor and a good reputation is considered prestigious among one's peer group and an essential achievement for career progression. In the drive to get their work published, researchers can forget, either intentionally or unintentionally, the ethics that should be followed in scientific publishing. In an environment where “publish or perish” rules the day, some authors might be tempted to bend or break rules. This special article is intended to raise awareness among orthodontic journal editors, authors, and readers about the types of scientific misconduct in the current publishing scenario and to provide insight into the ways these misconducts are managed by the Committee of Publishing Ethics. Full-Text PDF Editor-in-Chief’s responseAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 145Issue 2PreviewI was also pleased to see the article by Dr Vinod Krishnan in the October 2013 issue of the AJO-DO. Dr Sivakumar’s comments are supportive of the need for us all to be aware of ethical problems that can arise in the digital age of scientific publication. Our most effective line of defense has long been the 500 orthodontic referees who are familiar with the literature and occasionally draw our attention to potential violations. In addition to this group, I want you to be aware of several changes made recently by the AJO-DO and Elsevier. Full-Text PDF