|
|
EDITORIAL |
|
Year : 2014 | Volume
: 7
| Issue : 5 | Page : 541-542 |
|
|
Coping with academic anarchy: An appeal to reviewers, authors and readers to raise the bar
Amitav Banerjee
Department of Community Medicine, Padmashree Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Date of Web Publication | 10-Sep-2014 |
Correspondence Address: Amitav Banerjee Department of Community Medicine, Padmashree Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune, Maharashtra India
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0975-2870.140342
How to cite this article: Banerjee A. Coping with academic anarchy: An appeal to reviewers, authors and readers to raise the bar. Med J DY Patil Univ 2014;7:541-2 |
Publications are the public interface of medical research. Increased visibility of medical journals driven by the online access of most journals demands greater responsibility on the part of the medical fraternity both to publish as well as ensure accuracy and integrity of the contents. The information in these publications influences clinical and public health practice and can provide inputs for the policymakers. So one can guess the potential of harm to individuals and society if the contents in such publications are inaccurate or lack scientific integrity.
In the face of increasing numbers of scientific publications brought about by the digital revolution, the challenge is quality control. We are living in an era where the quantum of scientific publishing is increasing exponentially. There are also major changes in publishing models for, e.g., more and more journals are following the open access model, in which the scientific paper is freely available. Furthermore, the share of publications from countries like China and India, which do not have a strong tradition of scientific publications, is rapidly increasing. [1] Confounding the situation, unscrupulous publishers and journals, which do not follow publication ethics are exploiting the inexperienced researchers from countries like India as brought out in an earlier editorial. [2] Some of these so-called predatory journals with dubious credentials also manage to get indexed with reputed indexing bodies such as PubMed and Scopus. [3]
The academic bodies deciding on promotions and evaluating the worth of academics and institutions seem oblivious to the ground realities. Hardly any attention is given to research integrity and publication ethics more as an act of omission rather than of commission, as evidenced by failure to boycott journals and publishers who do not comply with publication ethics. Quantity of publications takes precedence over quality. This is leading to a state of "Academic Anarchy."
In the context of this "academic anarchy" an appeal is made to the reviewers, authors, and readers of this journal to ensure quality control of the papers published. The following paragraphs outline the role each is expected to play toward this end. This is in addition to the code of conduct and best practice guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) [4] being observed by the editorial board.
Reviewers ensure the robustness and integrity of the papers published in a peer reviewed journal. Though they are the backbone of the quality assurance system, their work goes unrecognized in the double-blind peer review system being followed by this journal. Many peer reviewers may be aware of the ethical guidelines for referees laid down by COPE. [5] If not, they are requested to read the guidelines in detail though we are giving the gist of it in this editorial. According to the COPE guidelines for reviewers, when they are approached for reviewing a paper they should only carry out the assignment if they possess the requisite expertise and have the time to finish the work within the time set by the journal. They should also ensure confidentiality and not discuss the manuscript with others without permission from the editor. The content of the manuscript should not be used to further their own or their organization's interest or to discredit others. They should also disclose any conflict of interest. Their review should be unbiased and not influenced by commercial interests. They should be objective and constructive in their views and abstain from hostile or derogatory comments. They should notify the journal immediately if they suspect any plagiarism, publication misconduct, or fraud.
However, in spite of best and sincere efforts on the part of the reviewers, we have to concede that peer review is a system-based on "human endeavor" and, therefore cannot be "perfect" or "infallible." [6]
At every stage of publication of the manuscript, the active participation of the authors is solicited. By and large, we get good cooperation from the authors in refining the manuscript. However, some authors - due to lack of awareness of the necessity of checks and counterchecks to ensure high quality publication are not so cooperative. Some even take offence at the comments of the referees and abruptly withdraw their paper. This shows their lack of professional maturity and awareness of publication etiquettes. Experienced authors, on the other hand, feel shortchanged if the reviewers' comments are cursory and superficial; since they want healthy criticism of their work so that they can refine it further. We even encountered an author (a very senior professor, who obviously did not have much publication experience), who took umbrage when the reviewer asked him to substantiate some of the data in his manuscripts with the relevant citation of references. His reply to this comment by the reviewer was that he does not have to cite any references since his "30 years of experience was adequate reference."!! Many novice authors also seem unaware of the time required for worthwhile peer review and become impatient if there is any delay in the peer review. This impatience is becoming more prevalent since most predatory journals promise instant peer review and publication within 2-3 weeks.
Besides taking the referees' remarks on their manuscript in the proper spirit and revising the manuscript based on these comments, authors are also expected to do the final proof reading of their manuscripts meticulously. Many authors do not take this work seriously. They are often the first to point out mistakes in their papers after publication, which they could have detected prior to publication if they had taken some time.
Just as after a drug is launched in the market we have pharmacovigilance, postpublication review and commentary on published papers is the final step in ensuring quality of published research. In addition to the checks and counterchecks by editors, reviewer, and authors, "the wider scrutiny postpublication" is a form of secondary peer review. [6] Here, the readers of the journal can contribute in setting the record straight by actively participating in "postpublication peer review." They can point out "evident mistakes" as well as "not so evident mistakes" in a published paper. These will be published as letters to the editor on priority. The journal welcomes active participation from its readers to put in place a system, which will be "self-correcting" as all those who publish with us would be subject to ongoing peer review by their own research community.
Conclusion | | |
In the present scenario of Academic Anarchy brought about by predatory journals and academic regulatory bodies who seem to be unaware of the poor quality of research being published by the medical fraternity in the "publish or perish" atmosphere, the journal appeals to all reviewers, authors and readers to raise the bar, so as to ensure the accuracy and integrity of its publications. Let us together strive toward excellence in publication of medical research.
References | | |
1. | The Royal Society. Knowledge, Networks and Nations. Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21 st Century. London: The Royal Society; 2011. Available from: https://www.royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2011/4294976134.pdf. [Last accessed on 2014 Jun 04]. |
2. | Banerjee A. The publication rat race: Who will bell the cat? Med J D Y Patil Univ 2013;6:219-20. |
3. | Beall J. Personal communication (mail sent from [email protected] to [email protected] on 23 May 2014). |
4. | Committee on Publication Ethics. Guidelines. Available from: http://www.publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines. [Last accessed on 2014 Jun 08]. |
5. | Hames I. COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Available from: http://www.publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf. [Last accessed on 2014 Jun 08]. |
6. | House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Peer Review in Scientific Publications. Eighth Report of Session 2010-12. HC 856. Published 28 July 2011. London: Authority of House of Commons, the Stationary Office Limited; 2011. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf. [Last accessed on 2014 Jun 05]. |
|