The headhunter

2016-09-30T11:19:00.000-07:00

Peer Review and the role of a Journal Editor

2012-03-02T08:44:00.000-08:00

Pre-screening manuscripts
First, editors must become more active in pre-screening manuscripts before they are sent out for review. As a reviewer, I regularly receive manuscripts that are severely deficient in English grammar and construction, along with the stated or implicit assumption that it is also my responsibility to re-write these manuscripts in addition to evaluating the scientific content. This expectation places an unfair burden on reviewers and editors, who are usually serving on a volunteer basis. Related issues include being sent manuscripts that are obviously lacking in scientific quality for that journal, out of scope, or in a completely different format from what is specified. Receiving these types of manuscripts increases frustration on the part of reviewers, and editors can and should simply return those manuscripts to the authors and let them address the deficiencies. The authors are ultimately responsible for the qualityof the manuscript.

Try to find actively publishing reviewers
Second, editors should focus on obtaining reviews from scientists who are actively publishing in their journal. Every month I receive several automatic ‘invitation to review' e-mails from journals where I have not published in the past nor am I likely to do so in the future, including various new on-line journals. Many scientists will decline those invitations unless there is overwhelming interest in the topic of the paper. Also, I receive numerous requests for reviews from journals where I have published only sporadically as a submitting or lead author, and often not at all for the past several years. Regular contributors have a more vested interest in the journal, but at the same time, editors must not continually ask the same people to review because 'they cannot find anyone else'. Efforts must be made to broaden the review base and increase participation in the review process.

A personal approach
Third, assuming reviews are being solicited from regular contributors to a journal, editors should first make personal contact with reviewers instead of just generating an “invitation to review” e-mail. However, if the reviewer declines a review because of their current workload, the editor should go to someone else, rather than asking the reviewer for a suggested alternate. In my experience, many scientists will not do a review if they know a colleague has declined because he or she was “too busy”, because they are busy as well. I do not suggest colleagues when I decline a review unless that person is more appropriate because of their expertise, and I generally let them know that I have or will recommend them as a reviewer.
Within many biological disciplines, the number of professional scientists is declining, pressure to obtain outside funding is increasing, and research scientists are being required to perform administrative functions as well. The steps discussed above are just a few ways editors can facilitate the peer review process to ease the burden on journal reviewers.

What’s so special about not-for-profit publishers?

2011-12-10T11:01:00.000-08:00

Who are they?

There are many different kinds of not-for- profit publisher: learned societies, profes- sional institutions, charities, educational bodies, university presses, etc. The largest ones are comparable in size with all but the largest commercial publishers; the smallest may only have one or two publications. Some organizations may not even have their own publishing staff; instead they may subcon- tract some or all of the publishing process to another publisher – whether not-for-profit or commercial. Societies and associations usually have a range of other activities – professional certi- fication, training, conferences – and often also provide scholarships to researchers. Most university presses are just one department of what may be a large university. Yet publishing journals, books and – increasingly – elec- tronic resources represents an important area of activity for all these types of organization.

Mission-driven publishing

One of the reasons for their central import- ance to their parent organization, whatever its type, is that they exist to disseminate information in support of the organization’s own mission. A learned society raises the level of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter in which the society specializes, by publishing research journals and monographs by and for its own com- munity. A professional association assists the professional development of its members through the publication of books, journals, and magazines – again, written and read by that community. A charity produces infor- mation to assist the people or cause that it exists to help. A university press often publishes works on the subjects in which its faculty has particular expertise (even though these days the authors may come from further afield). In all cases, selecting, refin- ing, and disseminating the highest-quality information is a fundamental part of what the organization does. It is thus a means to an end, and not an end in itself. As a consequence, many not-for-profit publishers have a special relationship with their authors and readers. Authors and readers (the two groups often overlap, of course) constitute the wider community that the organization exists to serve; their own membership represents a subset – and often a very large one – of this community. Thus the concerns of authors – for example, about retaining copyright in their work, reusing it in other forms, or posting it on the internet – are crucial to not-for-profit publishers, for authors are the publisher’s constituency. The publishing division of a learned society, for example, will naturally respond to the needs and wishes of its members and create, say, a free online archive of journal articles. In fact, it is much easier for such an organization to remain closely in touch with what its authors and readers really want because the society, association, or charity deals with them every day.

What happens to the money?

Not-for-profit does not necessarily mean unprofitable. Many organizations give pub- lications free of charge, or at less than cost price, to their members; indeed some – e.g. some university presses – are subsidized by their parent organization. But at the same time, many not-for-profit publishers do make respectable profits (or ‘surpluses’ as they prefer to call them) from their publishing activities. Although not-for-profit publishers tend to price their publications as reasonably as they can (as many research studies have shown), the publishing business has in many cases been quite lucrative for them in the past.Guest Editorial Of course, in the operation of their bus- core material. What is more, the internet inesses you might find little or no difference makes it possible for authors to distribute between a commercial and a not-for-profit their work directly and free of charge, and publisher; both are concerned to produce the this is what is happening in a number of information their customers really want, to subject areas. If the erosion of journal sales minimize costs, and to maximize revenue. accelerates, increasing prices will not solve They have very much the same worries: the problem – it will simply make it worse. In threats to copyright, piracy of their publica- consequence, many journals at the lower end tions, the cost and difficulty of true electronic of the ‘pecking order’ may cease to be publishing. Not-for-profit publishers are financially viable. particularly concerned to keep prices low, to For commercial organizations, the answer keep quality high, and to maximize dis- is simple. If a journal is no longer profitable, tribution of the information; however, they they stop publishing it. And if journal are not unique in this – many commercial publishing as a whole becomes unattractive, publishers would say the same. they get out of it. Not-for-profit publishers, What happens to the surpluses is, however, however, often do not have that option. significantly different. Unlike commercial Disseminating information is part of what companies, whose profits benefit their share- they do, part of their mission, rather than an holders, not-for-profit organizations put end in itself; they cannot simply stop doing it, all the money back into their activities. even if it ceases to contribute surpluses or, Publishing surpluses are used to fund the worse, goes into deficit. further development of publishing through What not-for-profit organizations will be reinvestment, and support other activities of forced to do, if journals cease to be a major the parent organization that bring in little or source of income (possibly even a cost no revenue: education, scholarships, learned centre), is to find alternative ways of funding conferences, professional development, and their other activities. This may mean that so on. It is for this reason that many conferences become more expensive, scholar- not-for-profit publishers have favourable tax ships dry up . . . treatment: to maximize the amount flowing Books are not immune, either. Certain back into the worthwhile mission of the types of book publication have become in- organization. creasingly hard to sell at a profit. Monographs are one case in point; libraries simply do not buy them on the scale that they used to. Poetry is another instance, as the well- Publishing – particularly scholarly journal publishing, which for long has been the financial mainstay of many a not-for-profit publisher – is under threat as never before. Libraries’ acquisition budgets are in- creasing little, if at all (many are actually decreasing in real terms). If subscriptions fall, prices have to rise to keep a journal viable. In addition, more and more articles are being written for publication (and publication is an essential career requirement for the authors); either existing journals expand, or new ones are formed – either way, the overall cost of information goes up. Thus the gap between publicized disposal of a university press’s poetry list to a specialist poetry publisher recently made clear. University presses have always accepted that some of their book publications will not reach viable levels of profitability; in the past it has been possible to support these because, overall, the list made money. Whether this will continue is increasingly uncertain. Those universities which currently receive a financial contri- bution from their presses are very glad of it. However, in these difficult financial times, they are less happy to support a deficit, as many now do. the cost of information and the available budgets to acquire it grows ever wider. In consequence, information users are impelled to use less expensive sources, such Not-for-profit publishers represent a signi- as ‘interlibrary loan’ photocopies, for non- ficant proportion of the publishing world.

Although they are superficially similar to makers, and funding agencies are clearly their commercial colleagues, and have many aware of what not-for-profit publishers do concerns in common, there are key dif- and why we are different. ferences. As the publishing environment What is lacking at the moment, however, changes, not-for-profit publishers do not have is a co-ordinated way of representing the the option of getting out; they will necessarily distinctive views of not-for-profit publishers work with their communities to find viable worldwide. ALPSP’s mission is ‘to serve the ways forward, even if this means funding the organization’s mission in new ways. In the past the similarities between not- for-profit and commercial publishers have been more obvious than the differences. We all work harmoniously together and I hope we will long continue to do so. Nevertheless, the key differences between us are likely to become increasingly significant as we all respond to the new challenges to the very existence of publishers as we know them. There are a growing number of issues on which the position of not-for-profit publishers may begin to diverge from that of commercial publishers – for example, enabling authors to retain copyright, allowing them to post entire international community of not-for- profit publishers of academic and professional information’, but we are not the only organ- ization to do so – for example, university presses have their own national organizations in several countries. The very largest players are commercial publishers, and they are well represented by a variety of trade associations. Publishing is, however, characterized by a very long ‘tail’ of very small businesses, and I would suspect that this is particularly true in the not-for-profit sector. It is therefore important to find ways of working more closely together, to ensure that our voice is heard. articles on e-print servers, or making archives freely available. We need to help decision

Taken from ALPSP

How peer review at top-tier journals is flawed

2011-10-14T11:18:00.000-07:00

The long-respected system of peer review is increasingly under attack. According to many scientists and academics, peer review is ineffective and time consuming at best and a tempting venue for favoritism and plagiarism at worst. The main problems with peer review stem from two basic issues: inconsistency in the reviewing process itself and too many submissions to top-tier journals. According to Drummond Rennie, executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, “If peer review was a drug, it would never be allowed on the market.”

Problems with the Reviewing Process

Peer review is a hazy concept. Every journal and grant-giving foundation has a different definition of what constitutes peer review but most require it before an article is even considered for publication. Most publishers agree that peer review has something to do with a third party reviewing a manuscript or grant proposal, but after that the details are often fuzzy. Major points of variation in peer review include how many peers review an article, who those peers are and what the conditions of the review are.Articles are usually reviewed by between two and four people who are chosen by an editor to recommend whether an article is fit for publication. These peers are generally—but not always—experts on the article’s subject and are asked to read for consistency, mistakes, misinformation and evidence of fraud. Some journals prefer for these peers to be anonymous and some have a fully transparent review process but either way, the review process usually does not accomplish its goals.
Peers miss an amazing amount of mistakes, inconsistencies and outright fraud. Generally unpaid, peers have little motivation to give articles the thorough dissection they need. Peer reviewers are often asked to review far more articles than their schedules allow, a situation documented by Daniel Myers in a recent essay about his experiences as a peer reviewer. As a result, peers tend to breeze through an article, decide whether it sort of makes sense or not and pass it along to the editor with a recommendation based more on what they had for breakfast than the integrity and quality of the research.
The recently discredited work of Woo-Suk Hwang at Seoul National University is an excellent example. Woo-Suk Hwang’s work went through a rigorous peer review process that entirely failed to catch the researcher’s massive amounts of fraud. Peers caught up in today’s publish-or-perish academic environment are often too overwhelmed with their own department’s writing demands to devote the correct amount of time and attention to the articles of their fellow scientists.
Submission Increases and Stylistic Changes

Authors working in academia are currently under intense pressure to publish in top-tier journals. In the past, researchers were free to submit articles to the most suitable journals instead of simply the most famous ones. Less-than-groundbreaking work could find a home in second and third-tier journals and authors had a low rate of rejected articles. Today, editors at top journals are overwhelmed with submissions that are unsuitable for their publications and authors are constantly frustrated by the rejections of well researched and thoughtfully written articles that simply aren’t appropriate for the most widely read publications. Much as not every short story is ideal for Harpers and the New York Times only has room for a certain number of editorials, top-tier journals are similarly limited by space and focus.The editor-in-chief of Science, Donald Kennedy, states that his publication rejects at least 6,000 papers every year and submissions are increasing steadily. With so many rejections, editorial staff members are required to use more of their already over-stuffed workdays addressing author complaints and sorting through claims of impartiality and plagiarism.
Authors are going to increasingly desperate measures to get editors to publish their work. In recent years, there has been a serious uptick in the amount of time scientists spend networking with editors in attempt to make a personal connection that will make rejection less likely. Another tactic is to exaggerate the results of a study, creating a flashier article at the expense of good science. Articles that have any link to human diseases are always more popular and writers have been known to stress very tenuous links between their research and human health just to appeal to editors.
Possible Solutions

In theory, peer review is a wonderful idea. The system of allowing an author’s cohort to review her work for flaws is sound and worked reasonably well for a number of years. When universities began foisting ridiculous publishing demands on their researchers, the system began to break down. Academics are now generally required to publish at least five articles per year, one of which is in a major journal. Considering how many more academics than top-tier journals there are, this is obviously unreasonable. Peer reviewers are often these same academics—constantly struggling to find enough time for their own work, let alone a colleagues article. To improve the peer review process, universities first need to relax their researchers’ publishing quotas.The peer review system has never been standardized and that would be an excellent next step toward saving it. Creating a basic training program for reviewers, a universal form for reviews and a system to deal with accusations of favoritism and plagiarism in the review process would be useful. Deciding whether reviews for individual publications would be anonymous or transparent would also be a smart move as would limiting the number of reviews a peer can do per year.
The peer review system is deeply flawed but salvageable. Authors and publishers are losing confidence in the whole system for good reason, and many authors are now pushing for its abandonment. Peer reviews is an essential control for maintaining the integrity and quality of research and those interested in saving it need to make changes sooner than later to prevent the breakdown it’s headed toward.

Taken, with consent, from Acredited Online Colleges. Writen by Laura Lyons

Book Publishing: Start Your Own Medical Book and Earn Incomes

2011-10-09T03:00:00.000-07:00

Single authors or groups of researchers working on a project and wishing to publish their findings in an independent publication organized and managed by themselves, can do so by proposing a collaboration with iMedPub. At the same time as offering complete freedom over the content covered, we contribute our publishing expertise and full support to the publishing process thanks to a dedicated and professional team.

With iMedPub you can start your own medical book. We´ll review, copyedit and sell your book. We share benefits with authors 50%.

If you are working on or planning a research project and you wish to publish your findings, we invite you to publish your work with us. You can choose to publish your work as:

A single-author monograph - a specialized scientific book written by one main author
A multiple-author monograph - a scientific book written by more than one author
An edited book - a research book in which each chapter is written by different contributors and edited by an expert scholar
Conference proceedings - a collection of selected academic papers that are presented in the context of an academic conference.

You can view here the Guidelines for authors.

To start a publishing project with iMedPub, please fill in this Publishing Proposal Form and return it by email to info@imedpub.com. The purpose of this form is to provide us with a general idea of your publishing proposal and present it to our Editorial Board for their consideration and approval. A decision will be sent within 10 days of receipt.

Contribute to an iMedPub Journal

2011-10-09T02:40:00.000-07:00

iMedPub publishes several Open Access peer-reviewed journals in the STM fields that cover new research and developments in different subject areas. Papers published in our journals are immediately published online and available to be read for free. At iMeDPub, we are dedicated to publishing insightful papers and original contributions from the brightest scholars.

Submissions

Submissions for each journal must represent original work, the copyright to which is not already owned elsewhere. Originality, creativity and cross-disciplinary approaches or perspectives are strongly encouraged in all journals. Papers may be submitted in electronic form only and according to our Instructions for Authors.

Authors wishing to have a manuscript published are invited to visit the submission sites at imedpub.com/ojs

You can also join editorial boards (email us your resume to info@imedpub.com) or contributing as reviewer.

Start Your Own Journal

2011-10-09T02:34:00.000-07:00

With iMedPub you can start your own journal.

The prerequisites for launching a journal are time and professional dedication. A committed and experienced Editor-in-Chief to lead the project is mandatory, and good project and content management skills are a basic requirement.

Are you interested in starting a new journal? Please tell us! Send us a proposal, and we'll present your idea to the Journal Department. We'll be back to you with their feedback within 40 days.

Your proposal should include a motivational letter to start a new journal together with:

Your scientific CV with a list of publications and editorial experience
A tentative title for the journal
The scope and topics of the journal
The anticipated publishing frequency
An outline of the potential audience
A tentative list of members of the Editorial team
A benchmark of the most influential journals in the field (competitors)

Proposals should be sent to Carlos Vazquez, info@imedpub.com.

If the proposal is accepted, the proposer will be named Editor-in-Chief. As such, his or her first responsibility will be to obtain the commitment of the members of the Editorial Board. The Editor-in-Chief will take responsibility over the published content and will encourage submissions from the best and brightest authors in the field.

As your publisher, InTech will provide the journal with an ISSN number and will take care of all administrative tasks during the launch period. Our professional staff and an advanced Manuscript Tracking System provided by Open Journal Systems imedpub.com/ojs for submitting and reviewing articles will be at your disposal. We will provide online visibility by creating the web pages of the journal as part of the intechweb.org website.

iMedPub will design the journal, will provide a team of technical editors and will prepare the content for publication. Our experienced team of scientific publishing professionals will work on getting the journal indexed in the most important and relevant scientific databases.

For any further questions please contact Carlos Vazquez, Head of Journal Publishing, by email at info@imedpub.com

Guide to Scientific Writing

2011-10-01T00:33:00.000-07:00

The Guide to Scientific Writing is a series of educational articles on how to design and write scientific research papers for publication. These articles will help authors, educators, researchers, training program directors, and other professionals write more clearly and effectively, thereby improving their chances for success. We encourage educators and training program directors to use them as a teaching aid, and provide a link to them on their own Web sites.

These articles are easy to read and humorous at times, yet are full of useful information and examples to illustrate important points. Because the articles will benefit anyone interested in scientific writing, we are making them available not only to subscribers, but to all scientists. Translations into Chinese and Spanish are available. We welcome your feedback and suggestions regarding aspects of the writing process about which you would like to learn more.

Full-text links to the Guide to Scientific Writing:
Part 1. The Title Says It All
Part 2. The Abstract and the Elevator Talk: A Tale of Two Summaries
Part 3. "It was a cold and rainy night": Set the Scene with a Good Introduction Part 4. Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why: The Ingredients in the Recipe for a Successful Methods Section
Part 5. Show Your Cards: The Results Section and the Poker Game
Part 6. If an IRDAM Journal Is What You Choose, Then Sequential Results Are What You Use
Part 7. Put Your Best Figure Forward: Line Graphs and Scattergrams
Part 8. Bars and Pies Make Better Desserts than Figures
Part 9. Bring Your Best to the Table
Part 10. The Discussion Section: Your Closing Argument
Part 11. Giving Credit: Citations and References
Part 12. How to Write a Rave Review
Part 13. Top 10 Tips for Responding to Reviewer and Editor Comments
Part 14. Passing the Paternité Test

Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science

2011-09-15T11:46:00.000-07:00

Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed

Peer review is the process that decides whether your work gets published in an academic journal. It doesn't work very well any more, mainly as a result of the enormous number of papers that are being published (an estimated 1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006). There simply aren't enough competent people to do the job. The overwhelming effect of the huge (and unpaid) effort that is put into reviewing papers is to maintain a status hierarchy of journals. Any paper, however bad, can now get published in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed.

The blame for this sad situation lies with the people who have imposed a publish-or-perish culture, namely research funders and senior people in universities. To have "written" 800 papers is regarded as something to boast about rather than being rather shameful. University PR departments encourage exaggerated claims, and hard-pressed authors go along with them.

Not long ago, Imperial College's medicine department were told that their "productivity" target for publications was to "publish three papers per annum including one in a prestigious journal with an impact factor of at least five.″ The effect of instructions like that is to reduce the quality of science and to demoralise the victims of this sort of mismanagement.

The only people who benefit from the intense pressure to publish are those in the publishing industry. Hardly a day passes without a new journal starting. My email inbox is full of invitations to publish in a weird variety of journals. They'll take just about anything. The US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that deal with alternative medicine. They are all "peer-reviewed", but rarely publish anything worth reading. The peer review for a journal on homeopathy is, presumably, done largely by other believers in magic. If that were not the case, these journals would soon vanish.

But it isn't only quack journals that have failures in peer review. In June, the British Journal of General Practice published a paper, "Acupuncture for 'frequent attenders' with medically unexplained symptoms: a randomised controlled trial (CACTUS study)". It has lots of numbers, but the result is very easy to see. All you have to do is look at their Figure. A figure accompanying an acupuncture research paper. "Outcome data over 52 weeks (acupuncture group received acupuncture weeks 0–26, control group received acupuncture weeks 26–52)". Image: BJGP

It's obvious at a glance that acupuncture has at best a tiny and erratic effect on any of the outcomes that were measured. The results are indeed quite interesting because they show that acupuncture doesn't even have a perceptible placebo effect. But this is not what the authors said. Their conclusion was: "The addition of 12 sessions of five-element acupuncture to usual care resulted in improved health status and wellbeing that was sustained for 12 months."

How on earth did the group, led by Charlotte Paterson at the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry at Exeter University, manage to reach a conclusion like that? Well, perhaps they were people who are committed to acupuncture and it is common enough for advocates of alternative medicine to ignore evidence, even their own. But the real question is how conclusions like these came to be published in a respectable medical journal that is widely read by GPs. To make matters worse, the journal issued a press release that quotes its editor, Professor Roger Jones DM, FRCP, FRCGP, FMedSci.

"Although there are countless reports of the benefits of acupuncture for a range of medical problems, there have been very few well-conducted, randomised controlled trials. Charlotte Paterson's work considerably strengthens the evidence base for using acupuncture to help patients who are troubled by symptoms that we find difficult both to diagnose and to treat."

The tabloid press had a field day on the basis of the press release. The Daily Mail, for example, reported: "Millions of patients with 'unexplained symptoms' could benefit from acupuncture on the NHS, it is claimed". But there were howls of outrage in the blogosphere, and some choice comments on Twitter. In these days of the citizen journalist, mistakes are soon spotted.

Two months later, the journal published 10 letters that pointed out the problems with the paper. Those problems are so very obvious you'd imagine that the journal would apologise for a failure of the peer review process, and for a press release that misled the public. Anyone can make a mistake, but there was no public apology and no corrected press release.

(Charlotte Paterson and Roger Jones respond to the author's criticisms below.)

So what can be done about scientific publishing? The only service the publishers provide is to arrange for reviews and to print the journals. And for this they charge an exorbitant fee, a racket George Monbiot rightly calls "pure rentier capitalism".

There is an alternative: publish your paper yourself on the web and open the comments. This sort of post-publication review would reduce costs enormously, and the results would be open for anyone to read without paying. It would also destroy the hegemony of half a dozen high-status journals. Everyone wants to publish in Nature, because it's seen as a passport to promotion and funding. The Nature Publishing Group has cashed in by starting dozens of other journals with Nature in the title.

There is just one problem with self-publication and post-publication review. In 2006 Nature magazine tried it and it wasn't popular. Most people who were asked didn't want to take part, and, more important, most people who were invited to comment declined to do so. The probable reason is the exceedingly competitive nature of research in many fields. A junior person might be terrified to criticise a senior person, and senior researchers might similarly be terrified of criticising each other, in case the person criticised was reviewing their next grant. Nevertheless, I suspect this sort of system has to come and there are things that could be done to ameliorate the problems.

First, it would be essential to allow anonymous comments. Most reviewers are anonymous at present, so why not online? Second, the vast flood of papers that make the present system impossible should be stemmed. I'd suggest scientists should limit themselves to an average of two original papers a year. They should also be limited to holding one research grant at a time. Anyone who thought their work necessitated more than this would have to be scrutinised very carefully. It's well known that small research groups give better value than big ones, so that should be the rule.

With far fewer papers being published, reviewers, grant committees and promotion committees might be able to read the papers, not just count them. A report of a parliamentary select committee on peer review concluded:

"We therefore have concerns about the use of journal Impact Factor as a proxy measure for the quality of individual articles. While we have been assured by research funders that they do not use this as a proxy measure for the quality of research or of individual articles, representatives of research institutions have suggested that publication in a high-impact journal is still an important consideration when assessing individuals for career progression."

These politicians show more sense than academics and research funders. My own university's promotion form still says "Candidates may wish to provide impact factors, citation rates or other bibliometric information, where appropriate." Most candidates would interpret that as an instruction to do so.

These proposals all depend on research being honest, but cases of outright fraud do happen. In Andrew Wakefield's case, the fraud linked autism with the MMR vaccine, causing the deaths of children from measles, and we owe a lot to Brian Deer, the journalist who exposed it.

Deer has recently backed a proposal from the House of Commons Science and Technology select committee that an official regulator should be appointed to police science. I don't think this could work. Is the regulator going to repeat experiments, or even check original data, to make sure all is well? In all probability, a regulator would soon degenerate into yet another box-ticking quango, and end up, like the Quality Assurance Agency, doing more harm than good. The way to improve honesty is to remove official incentives to dishonesty.

By and large, the problem does not arise from outright fraud, which is rare. It arises from official pressure to publish when you have nothing to say.

David Colquhoun is professor of pharmacology at University College London. He blogs at DC's Improbable Science

Response on behalf of the CACTUS Study research team

Dr Charlotte Paterson, Peninsula College of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Exeter.

Professor Colquhoun uses the freely available published paper of our CACTUS trial (Classical Acupuncture for Treating Unexplained Symptoms) as an example of "failures in peer review". His contention, that "it has lots of numbers, but the result is very easy to see. All you have to do is look at their figure" does not correspond with how randomised trials such as this are analysed. In table 3 of the paper we present all the data from the study with the results of the standard statistical tests. It is the results of these tests that determine whether the difference between the groups (those that did receive acupuncture in the first 26 weeks and those that didn't) is statistically significant, ie whether it is most unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.

In our case a statistically significant difference in favour of acupuncture was found for the primary outcome measure – a questionnaire called MYMOP that measures a change in individualised health status – and for the wellbeing questionnaire. Hence our conclusion that the addition of 12 sessions of five-element acupuncture to usual care resulted in an improvement in health status and wellbeing.

The graphs in figure 2 (reproduced in Colquhoun's article) are provided for readers who prefer to see findings depicted in this way. They are, however, only useful when accompanied by the title of the figure: "Outcome data over 52 weeks (acupuncture group received acupuncture weeks 0–26, control group received acupuncture weeks 26–52)". With this information (omitted by Colquhoun), your readers can come to their own conclusions about what appeared to happen to each group during the second six months. This is of interest, but is not the basis for our statistical conclusions, and never would be for any trial.

We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of our study in the paper, including the fact that the average benefit was relatively small, but would refute Colquhoun's unsubstantiated suggestion that we "are people committed to acupuncture". This is simply untrue. As for our response to peer review, this is a process that enabled us to improve the paper, and for our response to the debate in the journal letter pages, we refer you to the August issue of the British Journal of General Practice where it is published.

Unfortunately, the voice of patients and the public have been largely absent from these debates, although the same issue of the journal includes our paper reporting the results of a study in which some of the trial participants were interviewed. This aspect of the study provided additional in-depth information about the patient experience and the findings support the trial results and provide potential explanations and new insights. For example, in addition to perceiving a range of positive effects, some participants appeared to take on a more active role in consultations and self-care.

We found peer review to be helpful and we believe that the statistical findings of the randomised trial, together with the qualitative analysis of the patients' perspectives, provides doctors and patients with robust and useful information for making decisions about treatment.

Roger Jones, editor of the British Journal of General Practice

David Colquhoun's critique of my journal's peer review and editorial processes is based on a single table lifted from the main research paper, in which the detailed numerical data tell a somewhat different story, rendering his analysis partial and his conclusions specious.

Paterson and colleagues' paper was reviewed on two separate occasions by two expert statisticians, and read by me. The British Journal of General Practice operates an open peer review system, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are known to each other. The paper was initially rejected, with re-submission offered if the authors could deal with numerous methodological and some presentational issues in their manuscript.

The lack of "attention controls" – which mimic time spent talking and listening to patients – was pointed out, although of course this was a pragmatic, rather than an explanatory randomised controlled trial (RCT). The re-submitted paper was judged to be much improved, although one reviewer still had concerns about the effect size of the intervention (acupuncture). I decided to publish the paper because it reported a well-designed and well conducted RCT in a difficult area of practice: the subjects were patients with unexplained symptoms for which traditional medicine seemed to have little to offer. It was accompanied by a qualitative evaluation of patients' experiences in the same trial, and we also carried an editorial on acupuncture by academic colleagues from Hong Kong.

Publication was rapidly followed by a series of unpleasant and personally vindictive emails and blog comments from Colquhoun, which I was able to discuss at a meeting of the journal's editorial board a couple of weeks later. The board endorsed the working of the peer review process and saw no reason to retract the paper. They were concerned that the results were presented in an overly positive way in the journal, for which I take full responsibility. The next available print issue of the journal contained all the letters we had received about the paper, a note from me about the editorial board meeting and a response from the authors. We later took the unusual step of providing free access to the paper and the associated correspondence for non-subscribers.

Whether or not this episode represents a failure of peer review – and I don't think it does – it has nothing to do with the argument against the principle of peer review. Colquhoun's response, however, represents a failure of post-publication review. It seems to me that his animus derives much more from a profound antipathy towards the subject matter of this research than from a concern about the scientific methods used to investigate it. I find his hectoring communicative style unpersuasive and inappropriate and, if this is a vision of post-publication review in the future, God help us.

Writing the manuscript of a new book for iMedPub

2011-09-08T09:53:00.001-07:00

Guidelines to authors
Pipeline and Proposals

Writing and publishing a research article

2011-08-21T14:20:00.000-07:00

View more presentations from iMedPub.

A Step by Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Manuscript

2011-08-21T14:07:00.000-07:00

Free Publishing on Biomedical Sciences

2011-08-18T09:35:00.000-07:00

iMedPub publishes biomedical research worldwide at no cost to our authors.

We are one of the leading publishing houses of biomedical research. From the large number of research papers that are continuously being completed in medical sciences, we identify those which – due to their quality and practical relevance – are suitable for publication. In this way, the latest research is conveyed quickly and tailored to the needs of the respective specialist audience.

All monographs, scripts, diploma theses, master theses, dissertations, postdoctoral theses, and lecture notes are published by iMedPub as a specialist book in a high-quality paperback fitting with an individual cover image, ISBN and barcode. Our titles are produced on-site in Spain, and distributed worldwide via the leading retailers.

Reference style recommended for all our authors of books and articles

2011-08-09T13:30:00.000-07:00

The Vancouver system, recommended by the Council of Science Editors (CSE), is used in medical and scientific papers and research.

In one major variant, that used by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), citation numbers are included in the text in square brackets rather than as superscripts. All bibliographical information is exclusively included in the list of references at the end of the document, next to the respective citation number.
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) is reportedly the original kernel of this biomedical style which evolved from the Vancouver 1978 editors' meeting The MEDLINE/PubMed database uses this citation style and the National Library of Medicine provides "ICMJE Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals -- Sample References".

Call for Writers at our blog Medicalia.org

2011-08-03T08:35:00.000-07:00

Medicalia.org

At iMedPub we are now inviting prospective new writers for Medicalia.org to submit articles for publication. Whether you are interested in a career in scientific writing, would just like to have a few articles online that you can cite in your resume or/CV or you'd just like to contribute to a growing body of knowledge that is benefiting early career scientists all over the world, we'd love to hear from you.

In return for your article, you will obtain useful experience in writing for the web - (enhanced by great

editorial support) and the thrill of seeing your name up in lights (ok, pixels) in front of over 35,000 people worldwide. We also have a small number of (spare time, paid) staff writer and editor opportunities available for those who are interested and can demonstrate skill and commitment

to their writing.

All of our articles are short (max 2000 words, normally 500 words), to-the-point and written in a conversational tone that is fun to read and write. So writing for BsB shouldn't be time consuming, nor boring -- in fact we think it is a lot of fun.

For more information on writing for Medicalia.org, and how to submit, please visit this page:

http://medicalia.org and imedpub.com

Looking forward to hearing from you!

Authorship in Medicine

2011-07-31T13:28:00.000-07:00

Academic authorship of journal articles, books and other original works is a means by which academics communicate the results of their scholarly work, establish priority for their discoveries, and build their reputation among their peers. Authorship is a primary basis on which many academics are evaluated for employment, promotion, and tenure. In academic publishing, authorship of a work is claimed by those making intellectual contributions to the completion of the research described in the work. In simple cases, a solitary scholar carries out a research project and writes the subsequent article or book. In many disciplines, however, collaboration is the norm and issues of authorship can be controversial. In these contexts, authorship can encompass activities other than writing the article; a researcher who comes up with an experimental design and analyzes the data may be considered an author, even if he had little role in composing the text describing the results. According to some standards, even writing the entire article would not constitute authorship unless the writer was also involved in at least one other phase of the project.

In the medical field, authorship is defined very narrowly. According to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, in order to be considered an author, one must have satisfied all three conditions:

Contributed substantially to the conception and design of the study, the acquisition of data, or the analysis and interpretation
Drafting or providing critical revision of the article,and
Provided final approval of the version to be published

The acquisition of funding, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship. Many medical journals have abandoned the strict notion of author, with the flexible notion of contributor.

eBooks? Simple!

2011-07-07T10:05:00.000-07:00

With the growing popularity of ebooks there has never been a better time to look at your e-resource strategy. As much as we all love a real book that we can hold lovingly in our hands, there’s no escaping the fact that a growing proportion of the reading public prefers to have their books in a handy mobile format - so they can
read on the go, on their laptop, iPad or mobile phone. So if your book’s not available as an ebook, you could well be missing out on a growing market!

Now you can easily publish your work as eBook with iMedPub. Just contact us (info@imedpub.com) and we´ll let you know the details.

You can also have a look to our eBook Medicine group at Facebook to see our running titles.

The Role of the Journal Editor

2011-05-14T23:47:00.000-07:00

[This week’s blog post is from AuthorAID community member Richard de Grijs, a professor at the Kavli Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Peking University, China. Richard has published many articles in international journals and is a scientific editor of The Astrophysical Journal]

I have been a scientific editor of one of the main journals in my field for a number of years. It's very exciting to see many good papers get published after one or more rounds of revision.

Occasionally, however, we receive unexpected responses from authors whose articles have been criticized by expert reviewers. I recently received from an author a message that surprised me a little; the author fumed that he would respond to the reviewer's comments after "dealing with [his] anger".

This message made me pause for a moment. I had the impression that this author thought that the referee was "out to get him" and that I had simply forwarded the message without considering it.

However, that is not what the editorial process is about. Our aim is to help authors improve their papers to reach an acceptable scientific standard. Of course, this process should be complete within a reasonable number of iterations.

Decisions on suitability for publication are made by the editorial team and not by reviewers. Reviewers' contributions are indispensable and greatly appreciated, but they are only advisory. Editors are independent assessors; they may agree with criticism raised by reviewers, or they may instead be convinced by an author's counterarguments.

We try to ensure that members of our editorial team don't have a stake in the articles they handle (after all, we are members of the community whose papers we consider) to avoid any semblance of conflicts of interest.

So, next time you receive a critical report, please don't blame the messenger.

Publish your book open access

2011-03-16T12:39:00.000-07:00

We invite you to publish your medical book open access with iMedPub. It would be abstracted and indexed in major databases and search engines. The book will also be available online and you will receive a hard copy via express delivery service.

Why should you participate?

- Focused on your area of research

- Free online availability increases your paper's impact

- Each iMedPub Open Books' chapter is downloaded approximately 1000 times per month

- More citations of your work

- You keep the copyright to your work

Article Processing Charge (APC)

iMedPub Open Books are published under the Open Access publishing model, which means that they are free to read by anyone, anywhere in the world.

The Publishing Fee covers the expenses entailed in producing the book. It covers the expenses of technical staff, publishing process managers, preparation of the book and finally, printing and sending you a hard copy of your book via worldwide express delivery service.

Publishing with Open Access is not without costs since the book will also be published in a printed edition with ISBN number. The processing fee also covers costs of review, corrections, preparation for print, print, postal shipment and cover design.

A highly optimized publishing workflow makes it possible for us to keep our Article Processing Charge lower than the fees charged by most other academic publishers. In comparison to other Open Access publishers, most of which require payment of an author fee of between 1,000 and 3,000 Euro, iMedPub publishing fee is rather symbolic.

Note: This is going to be a printed book with free online access as well.

Important Notice!

The Article Processing Charge (APC) is 690 EUR per book.

This is not a submission fee! You will pay the APC only if your full book is accepted for publication.

For further details about iMedPub and Open Access please visit imedpub.com

For proposals or if you need more information, please don't hesitate to contact us at info@imedpub.com

Invitation to publish your medical book with us

2011-03-02T09:58:00.000-08:00

Welcome to a new world for medical books. If you want to participate in a publishing revolution that expands access to information; knowledge, while still generating handsome royalties, iMedPub's Books might be for you!

You are

* an expert in your field
* willing to share your knowledge and expertise with the world
* ready to write a book

We will

* guide you through the editorial process
* create the PDF, eBook and for print on demand versions of your book
* make the print edition available for sale at Amazon and many other sites for sale

If you are an expert in your field, consider writing a book with iMedPub and reach out to a worldwide audience.

Topic: Your area of interest (up to you)
Pages: 75-100
Authors: 1-4
Print edition: for sale at Amazon.com and Google eBookStore
Benefits: share 50% authot, 50% iMedPub
Timeline: We do not work with deadlines. You could submit your manuscript whenever you want. Then we´d prepare the .pdf and eBooks versions and proceed with launching it online. Obviously, the eariler you submit the earlier the book is available for sale.
Guidelines
Charges: There is no financial burden for authors. We cover all charges.

Please, let us know if you are interested (your proposal: title and brief description) and any enquiry you have.

Become a reviewer for iMedPub Journals

2011-02-22T09:13:00.001-08:00

New reporting guidelines for animal research

2010-08-31T09:46:00.000-07:00

The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3R) has recently released a set of guidelines aimed at improving the reporting of research involving animal experiments. NC3R has previously demonstrated that the scientific value of many US and UK publications that have reported on animal research is possibly limited by the insubstantial information given about the design, conduct and analysis of studies.
The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines outline essential points that should be included in publications on animal research if standards of reporting are to be improved so that results are suitable for use and evaluation.
COPE have welcomed the initiative in a blog about the guidelines.

Become a reviewer for iMedPub Journals

2010-08-06T23:53:00.000-07:00

<p>&amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;gt;Loading...&amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;gt;</p>

Preparing a Manuscript for Submission to a Biomedical Journal

2010-08-04T09:09:00.000-07:00

ISMPP has published an Author Toolkit in the August issue of Current Medical Research & Opinion (CMRO). The toolkit provides guidelines on selecting journals, preparing an article and considering the ethical issues associated with publishing in this area. The guidelines form part of the ISMPP-sponsored Medical Publishing Insights and Practices Initiative (MPIP). Full text.

You can also read ICMJE's Preparing a Manuscript for Submission to a Biomedical Journal and the EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English

Upcoming journals

2010-08-02T10:37:00.000-07:00

Farmacología y Toxicología

Revista de libre acceso en Español, sobre Farmacología y Toxicología

Editors-in-Chief: Prof. Gerardo Alberto Isea Fernández y Dr. Luis Alguacil

Archives of Medical Genetics

Publication covering molecular basis of human disease, human cancer genetics, the clinical manifestations of genetic disorders, applications of molecular genetics to medical practice and the systematic evaluation of such applications.

Editor-in-Chief: to be assigned

Metastasis Research

Journal on molecular mechanisms of metastasis.

Metastasis Research provides an integrated view of research on molecular mechanisms of metastasis including cell and tumor biology; clinical research; endocrinology; epidemiology; experimental therapeutics, molecular targets and chemical biology; immunology; molecular biology, pathobiology and genetics. Thus its publication scope covers all subfields of metastasis research. Papers are stringently reviewed and only those that report results of novel, timely, and significant research and meet high standards of scientific merit will be accepted for publication.

Metastasis Research publishes high quality original papers and reviews that make a significant contribution to increasing understanding of the causes of metastasis and to improving the treatment and survival of patients.
We are proud of its editorial independence, high standards, and tradition of serving the international cancer research community.

Archivos de Psiquiatría y Psicología

Esta revista trata de todos los aspectos de la salud mental: psiquiatría, psicología clínica, neuropsicología, etc...
Editor Jefe: Oscar David Díaz-Sotelo
archpsico@imedpub.com
Psicólogo - Docente - Máster en Salud Internacional

If you wish to join the board of an upcoming journal, please contact us.

We are also open to suggestions on new journals.

Collaborative books

2010-07-28T12:19:00.000-07:00

The Collaborative Books Project (Collabooks) is a popular movement committed to develop online textbooks through open contributions. The idea behind The Collaborative Books Project is relatively simple, but totally unique: collections of knols integrated within a book.
Editors or authors wishing to join can email at info@imedpub.com

New Journals: starting a new journal with iMedPub

2010-07-24T04:29:00.000-07:00

Why start a new journal?

There are many reasons to start a new journal. Some researchers may want to provide a home for an emerging field of research, others may want to cut across traditional subject boundaries, and some may simply want to provide an open access alternative to existing journals. For societies, there can be no better way to fulfil their mission of furthering knowledge in their fields than by making research freely available to a global audience.

If you already run a journal, iMedPub Journals can easily convert it to our open access model, free of charge.

If you would like to make a proposal to start a new journal, or convert an existing title,

What you need to know about our independent journals program

Open access

iMedPub's open access policy means that all research articles are freely and universally accessible online, authors retain copyright to their work, and all articles are archived in an open access repository. BioMed Central's commitment to open access is based on the view that unhindered access to research is essential to the rapid and efficient communication of science.

Journal web sites

iMedPub's independent journals are primarily online publications. However, an annual print edition can be made available for purchase on demand, if desired.

To provide consistency for users and to ensure maximum efficiency, all our journal web sites are based on a standard template, which offers various customization options.

We also have standardized instructions for authors, whose consistency makes life simpler for authors.

License agreement

Authors who publish in any of iMedPub's journals retain copyright to their articles, and license their article to be distributed under iMedPub's standard license agreement. This allows anyone to disseminate and reproduce the article, as long as proper attribution of authorship is given and citation details are provided.

Funding open access and article-processing charges

Starting a new independent journal with iMedPub, or transferring an existing journal to BioMed Central is completely free of charge.

Under the open access model, there are no subscription charges for users. Instead, there have an article-processing charge for each accepted article, payable by the author, typically using funds from his/her institution or funding body.

Researchers at institutions that are members of iMedPub do not have to pay the article-processing charge directly as it is covered by a payment from their institution. For more information see our Institutional Membership page.

For the independent journals, the standard article-processing charge is currently €200 for each accepted manuscript. iMedPub has discouwaives charges for authors who lack funds to pay article-processing charges.

Subsidising article-processing charges

Journals may opt to subsidise article-processing charges by obtaining and using grants from institutions or charitable organisations. Educational grants from industry are also a possibility, although journals should consider their editorial independence when making such arrangements.

Some journals are published in association with a scientific society that use part of the membership fee towards publication costs. We are happy to discuss such arrangements.

Editor-in-Chief criteria

For an Editor-in-Chief to be successful we need to ensure that he/she has sufficient research experience to be able to deal with the numerous editorial issues that arise when running a journal, and is of a high enough standing in their field to bring credibility to the journal.

When considering a proposed Editor-in-Chief we would expect he/she to have:

Carried out multiple research studies, as a Principal Investigator.
Published a significant number of research articles relevant to the scope of the journal, particularly within the last five years, being the senior author on a large percentage of these.
Received a number of research grants from major funding bodies.
Held positions within societies or with other journals in the field.
Given presentations at relevant international conferences, or to have been involved in organising such conferences.

We understand that some of these criteria may not be met because of the nature of the field or the current position of the Editor-in-Chief, hence rather than being a strict list of requirements, the conditions above should be used as a guide for the factors that will be taken into account when assessing a potential Editor-in-Chief.

If you would like to propose a new journal, but do not meet the above criteria, you will need to recruit an Editor-in-Chief before submitting a proposal. He/she must be willing to take an active role in the new journal and will need to sign an agreement to serve as Editor-in-Chief.

Societies wishing to start a new journal are also advised to select an Editor-in-Chief before submitting a proposal, although this is not essential.

Workload

iMedPub has developed tools for researchers to run journals under their own editorial control (hence the term "independent" journals). These currently consist of an online manuscript submission system, a tool used to invite peer-reviewers for manuscripts, and an online article-production system. Additional systems to help editors manage their journals are currently in development.

Starting a journal, however, is about more than just handling manuscripts and updating the website. You will have full editorial control over the journal.

Prospective editors must be willing to recruit an active Editorial Board, pursue research manuscripts from the field, invite/commission commentaries, reviews and other types of articles and help us actively market the journal. It is advisable for prospective editors to consider recruiting some administrative assistance (either secretarial or from junior colleagues).

Please note that although iMedPub will handle article production, we do not currently provide copyediting services for manuscripts. Prospective editors who would like to copyedit accepted manuscripts will need to organise this themselves, although we can help with such arrangements, if requested.

Peer Review

All articles published in our independent journals, with the possible exception of Book Reviews and Editorials, must be peer reviewed. It is the responsibility of Editors-in-Chief to devise a peer-review policy and organise the peer-review system following launch of the journal.

Prospective editors must decide whether their journal will have "open" or "closed" peer review: peer review is closed when the authors do not know the names of the reviewers (the standard for most journals). Peer review is open when authors do know the names of reviewers. In open peer review, reviewers are also asked to declare any competing interests, and a full publication history, including the reviewers’ reports, is published with the final article.

What to include in an initial journal proposal

If you would like to discuss starting a new journal, please provide us with information on the points listed below. Feel free to contact info@imedpub.com about any questions or issues you want to discuss before you begin working on the formal proposal.

Names and addresses of proposer(s), with fax and telephone numbers.
If you are proposing a journal and do not intend to serve as the Editor-in-Chief, please explain what role you intend to take in the running of the journal, or your position within the society, if it's a society journal.
A brief description of the journal, including:
- Title (if this is a new journal please check to ensure it does not already exist).
- A 20-word aim for the journal.
- A 100-word description of the field.
- A 100-word rationale for why the journal is needed. This should include a description of the purpose of the publication: will it be educational, to encourage debate or to provide a home for the latest research?
- A list of topics included (and not included, if useful) in the scope of the journal.
- Expected content, by article type (e.g. reviews, commentaries, research articles). Please check beforehand that these are included in the list of article types currently available in our journals.
A full description of your peer-review process. This should cover the following points:
- Whether peer review will be open or closed.
- Whether you will peer review all manuscripts or screen submissions prior to peer review.
- How many reviews you will need to make a decision. Note that we strongly recommend at least two reviewers be consulted for every manuscript.
- Whether manuscripts will be routinely sent to a statistician.
- What the procedure will be if the reviewers are in disagreement.
- Who will make the final decision.
- How quickly you will aim to make a first decision.
- What the procedure will be if an author is unhappy with the decision.
A minimum 100-word overview of existing publications in the field: why is a new publication needed, or if this is an existing journal, where does your journal fit into the current literature?
A list of 24 manuscripts (an average of 2 per month) that you will actively solicit for publication in the new journal during its first year. Please provide the general topic or working title and the prospective author (PI). The articles should be from a range of institutions and must be at a stage that should allow completion and writing-up within the next twelve months.
A minimum 100-word vision of where you see the journal in five years' time: will it have an Impact Factor, how many articles will it be publishing, who will be reading the journal?
A full curriculum vitae for the proposed Editor(s)-in-Chief, including a publication record.
Any further relevant information:
- If this is a society journal, please provide a brief description of the aims and history of the society and how many members it currently has.
- If this is an existing journal, please give a brief history of the journal, including how long it has been published, by whom, and any indexing services it belongs to. A brief description of the reasons for transferring the journal would also be useful.

When your proposal is complete, or if you have any questions about starting a new journal, or transferring an existing publication, please contact info@imedpub.com

Please be aware that from time to time we may discuss journal proposals with others in the field in order to help with our assessment. If you would prefer your proposal to remain confidential please mark this clearly at the top of your documents.

Transferring an existing journal to iMedPub Journals

The experience gained from publishing a diverse and growing portfolio makes iMedPub Journalsl the ideal partner for journals published on behalf of scientific societies, professional groups and institutions. iMedPub Journals offers cutting-edge technology, including sophisticated online tools for Editors, in combination with a financial model that can be customised to the specific needs of individual societies and their journals.

Transferring journals to BioMed Central and, in the course, converting to open access is cost and hassle free. There is no interruption to the journals' existing coverage by indexing and bibliometric services, including impact factor tracking. High visibility and the citation advantage that comes with open access can give a further boost to a journal's reputation and ranking.

Depending on the copyright applicable, transferring journals have the additional option of making their back content accessible from BioMed Central's site, and to further increase the visibility of the journal and its older content we will also submit the back content for inclusion in PubMed Central and PubMed, as well as to other archives and repositories. An example are the articles published in Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica between 2000 and when the journal started publishing with BioMed Central in spring 2006.

In our experience, the demand for print editions of journals has been falling steadily but societies may find a print version for members desirable. We are happy to discuss this option as a print edition can easily be produced from our print-ready article PDFs.

To obtain further information, please contact us with your enquiries. Because of notice periods for current contracts it is advisable to start the discussion, both with us and among Editorial Board and Society members, well ahead of expiry dates and any meetings where the journal's future could be discussed.

Here you can find more information about our independent journals. If you would like to make a proposal to convert an existing journal to open access, please see "What to include in a transfer proposal".

If you have any questions about the independent journals program, please contact imedpub@gmail.com

Newly launched journals

No fees to publish in newly launched journals

For a limited time, submissions to newly launched journals will be published free of standard article processing charges.

Upcoming journals

You can see the list of upcoming journals here.

Careers in journal publishing

2010-07-24T04:17:00.001-07:00

Journals are an interesting and satisfying area of publishing in which to make your career. This is a lively and fact-packed guide for those who are making career decisions or who are just about to embark on a career, and for people who want to develop their career further.

This publication by Peter Sowden and Pippa Smart from ALPSP is free to download here.



It covers: Why choose a career in journals publishing? Journals publishing jobs (including real-life interviews) Different kinds of journals publishers How to find work in journals publishing Comprehensive listing of undergraduate and postgraduate courses Comprehensive listing of post-experience training courses Employment agencies Organisations in journals publishing Further reading

Hybrid journals

2010-07-21T09:23:00.000-07:00

What is a Hybrid Journal?

Some traditional journals offer an option for authors to make their individual articles freely accessible to anyone worldwide, for an additional fee. Other articles in the journal remain accessible only through subscription. This option is relatively new, but a growing number of publishers began offering it in 2006.

The author either has to pay the fee or find an institutional source to pay the fee. The fee varies by publisher and journal title, but is commonly between $2,500 and $3,000 per article. iMedPub's charge is much lower (200 € in 2010).

By a "hybrid journal" one means a journal that publishes some free-access research articles and some toll-access research articles, when the decision between the two kinds of access is the author's rather than the editor's. Authors who choose the free option must usually pay a fee (or find a sponsor to pay a fee) to cover the journal's expenses. In return the publisher provides immediate free online access to the article at its own web site. Authors who don't choose the free option don't pay a processing fee, although they might still pay page and color charges. Nor do they get immediate free online access, although they might get delayed free online access if the journal provides free access to its sufficiently old back issues.

The momentum for hybrid journals is understandable. The option is nearly risk-free for publishers. If the uptake is low, they still have subscription revenue to pay the bills. If the uptake is high and subscribers start to cancel, they have fee revenue to pay the bills. If they promise to reduce their subscription price in proportion to author uptake (and some do), then fee revenue should pay the difference. If they don't promise to reduce subscription prices (and some don't), then they have what a friend calls a "double charge" business model. Hence, in one form or another, the model should spread fast and far.

Nine key questions to ask about any hybrid journal program
How good would that be for OA? Before answering, consider:

(1) Does the journal let participating authors retain copyright?

If not, then authors (or their sponsors) are only paying to remove price barriers, leaving permission barriers in place. The journal is forcing users to put up with the delay and expense of seeking permission whenever they want to exceed fair use, for example, to quote long excerpts, to print full-text copies, to email copies to students or colleagues, or put copies on CDs for bandwidth-poor parts of the world, to migrate copies to new formats or media to keep the text readable, to archive copies for preservation, to deposit a copy in an OA repository independent of the publisher (more on this in Question 3 below), to include the work in a database or mashup, to copy the text for indexing, text-mining, or other kinds of processing, to make an audio recording of the text, or to translate it into another language.

None of the August Four lets authors retain copyright. The same is true of most of the other publishers with hybrid programs. The stand-out hybrid publisher is Springer, which originally (July 2004) asked authors to transfer copyright, but after Jan Velterop arrived as its Open Access Director (August 2005) changed its mind (October 2005) and let authors retain copyright.

(2) Does the journal use an OA-friendly license, like those from Creative Commons? Does it let authors do so?

If the journal removes important permission barriers or lets authors retain key rights, but doesn't formalize this permission in a human- and machine-readable license, then in effect it's hiding information about which uses are permitted and which are not, forcing users to choose between the delay of seeking permission and the risk of proceeding without it. In this situation, conscientious users will either seek permission or err on the side of non-use --two kinds of harm that OA was designed to prevent. When the publisher has already given permission but hasn't made the permission easy to discover, then the harm is caused by poor communication.

Again, none of the August Four uses an OA-friendly license and Springer is the stand-out from previously announced hybrid programs. At the same time that Springer decided to let authors retain copyright, it adopted an equivalent of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoCommercial license.

(3) Does the journal automatically deposit participating articles in an OA repository independent of the publisher? Does it allow the author to do so?

If not, then authors and readers have no guarantee that the article will remain available, and remain OA, in case the journal folds up, is bought out, or simply changes its access policy. PLoS and BMC, for example, automatically deposit all their OA articles in PubMed Central.

There's another issue here beyond insurance against policy-change at the publisher. The Wellcome Trust requires that articles resulting from Wellcome-funded research be OA through PubMed Central or UK PubMed Central. OA through from the publisher's site or even an institutional repository is not good enough. Unless hybrid publishers allow deposit in PMC or UKPMC, they are essentially excluding Wellcome-funded authors.
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX031743.html#P44_4355 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_05_21_fosblogarchive.html#114866419135433823
BMJ is the only one of the August Four that routinely deposits all participating articles in an independent OA repository --in this case, PubMed Central. It does so immediately upon publication. Wiley will deposit participating articles in a funder's repository when the funder requires it, but not otherwise. Authors may not apparently deposit in other repositories even if they pay Wiley's fee. APS lets authors post participating articles to a personal web site or deposit them in an institutional repository; but authors need ASP permission to deposit them anywhere else. Cambridge is silent on the subject.

(4) Does the journal waive fees in cases of economic hardship?

If not, the journal's OA option may lie beyond the reach of most authors --those without the means to pay on their own and those without a funder or employer to pay on their behalf. This is not itself a barrier to publication, since hybrid journals will still publish in the conventional way for authors who don't choose the OA option. But if it's not a barrier to publication, it's a barrier to the extra benefits of OA publication, at least as provided by that journal. Moreover, more non-OA journals than OA journals charge author-side fees in the form of page and color charges (more under Question 8, below). So even the conventional or non-OA publishing route at a given hybrid journal may erect barriers to indigent authors.

Fee waivers are very common at full OA journals and very rare at hybrid journals. None of the August Four offers fee waivers and I don't know of any other hybrid program to do so either.

(5) Does the journal promise to reduce the subscription price in proportion to author uptake?

If not, then it's simply introducing a way to be paid twice for the same articles. Neither authors nor subscribers should tolerate this; at least one of those parties is entitled to some relief.

Cambridge is the only one of the August Four to promise to reduce its subscription prices in proportion to author uptake. Wiley and BMJ are silent on the question, which means they are not making the promise. The APS position is more complicated. APS will use fees to "augment [its] current subscription income" (the double-charge model), at least "at first". If uptake is high and libraries cancel subscriptions, then it will use fees to "offset such losses". If the fees generate revenue beyond the amount needed for such offsets, then APS will lower subscription prices but only for selected institutions.

(6) If authors have a prior obligation to their funding agency to provide OA to their peer-reviewed manuscript, does the journal let them comply without choosing the new OA option and paying the associated fee?
If not, the journal is trying to interfere with a funder-grantee contract to which it is not a party. Authors shouldn't have to pay their publisher in order to live up to a contract with their funder. Publishers shouldn't ask them to do so; and if they do, neither authors nor funders should tolerate it.

APS, BMJ, and Cambridge are silent on this subject. Wiley requires authors to pay if they want to comply with an OA mandate from their funder. To twist the knife, Wiley says that it developed its hybrid program in order to "support" authors with obligations to funders.

There may be a loophole. The Wiley policy seems to apply only to authors who want to deposit the published edition of their article. But most funder policies only apply to the final version of the author's peer-reviewed manuscript, not to the published edition. Wiley doesn't say whether it would charge fees for authors who want to comply with funder mandates in that form.

(7) If the journal previously allowed author self-archiving without an embargo, does it still allow it for authors who do not choose the new OA option?
If not, then the hybrid program constitutes a retreat on the OA archiving front even if it's an advance on the OA journal front. Authors who would have chosen self-archiving must now choose between accepting an embargo and paying a fee for what used to be free. If they want immediate OA, then the archiving option is closed and only the fee-based journal option remains.

When a green publisher introduces a hybrid journal program, it creates new pressures on itself to retreat from green by putting an embargo on self-archiving. But authors should exert a countervailing pressure to prevent journals from retreating on green in order to advance toward gold. Authors should be allowed to self-archive their peer-reviewed postprints without an embargo or fee, regardless of their choice on an optional new journal program. Publishers with policies to the contrary are asserting control over an edition that has not undergone copy editing, final manuscript preparation or mark-up, and that is usually not subject to the copyright transfer agreement.

APS and Cambridge are the only two of the August Four to allow non-participating authors to self-archive their peer-reviewed postprints without an embargo or fee. (Cambridge also allows self-archiving the published PDF but only after a 12 month embargo.) BMJ lets non-participating authors deposit their articles anywhere they like, but only after a six-month embargo; this is a retreat from its previous green policy.

Wiley says nothing about how its hybrid program, which tightly restricts where OA copies can end up, affects its self-archiving policy. It was green before it launched its hybrid program and we should assume it still is.

Also see Bill Hubbard's summary of the self-archiving policies of the major hybrid journal publishers.
http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind06&L=american-scientist-open-access-forum&D=1&O=D&F=l&P=60709

(8) For participating authors, do the OA publication fees cover page and color charges or are the latter laid on top of the former?

If authors (or their sponsors) must pay both kinds of fee, this needn't be a reason to look elsewhere. It's just a reason to keep their eyes open and understand the full price.

From one point of view, it's perfectly fair for a hybrid journal to charge authors both kinds of fee. The journal is providing more than one service and there's nothing wrong with charging separate fees for separate services. But from another point of view, it's a sleight of hand that could easily mislead authors. The only purpose for OA publication fees is to cover the journal's costs of publication. Journals that charge author-side processing fees and then add page and color fees on top are either charging twice for the same service or keeping their processing fees deceptively low.

(This objection doesn't apply to journals that can keep their fees low because they have other sources of revenue, such as advertising or subsidies. The reason is simply that they never charge the author more than the one low fee.)

BMJ, Cambridge, and Wiley are silent on this subject. APS levies page and color charges on top of the OA processing fee. However, even after paying all these fees, APS authors don't get OA to the published edition, but only to a version stripped of links to citing and cited articles.

(9) Is the fee high or low?

There's no right answer to this question, but there are at least two criteria. For publishers, the test is whether the fee is high enough to cover its costs. For authors, the test is whether they can afford it, after taking into account any money they can raise for this purpose from their funder or employer. Of course, a given fee may pass the first test and fail the second.

When publishers justify high fees by saying that they reflect their actual costs, we may believe them. But that doesn't change the fact that other publishers seem to have lower costs and that the fees may still be too high for most authors to afford without a subsidy from a funder or employer.

That's just one reason for a note of caution: we cannot conclude that a low level of author uptake indicates a low level of author interest in OA.

At Cambridge, the fee is a flat £1500/$2700. The Wiley fee is a flat $3,000. APS has a two-tier fee, $975 for articles in Physical Review A-E and $1300 for Letters in Physical Review Letters. BMJ also has a two-tier fee for different BMJ journals, though the two fees are higher, £1,200/$2,220/€1,775 and £1,700/$3,145/€2,515.

Buyer beware: if the fee is too high for you or your sponsor, you don't have to pay it. You can submit to an OA or hybrid journal with a lower fee or you can submit to a conventional non-OA journal (one of the 70% that already consent to postprint archiving) and self-archive. Most hybrid journals make it hard to elect a third option that might otherwise be attractive: choose the non-OA path at the hybrid journal and self-archive.

A few other issues

Those are the nine major questions. But here's a minor tenth:

Did the publisher previously criticize the very idea of charging author-side fees for OA dissemination, arguing that it corrupted peer review? (Elsevier and the Royal Society did.) If so, how does the publisher escape its own criticism? Has it issued a retraction?

It's one thing for a publisher new to this model to institute a good editorial firewall to prevent its editors from thinking about fee revenue when evaluating papers. But it's another to stand by false and harmful criticism of other journals that had good firewalls all along.

On the one hand, I want publishers who formerly opposed OA journals to change their minds and support them. I want to praise that as progress, not criticize it as inconsistency. But on the other, when a publisher tries to gain by condemning a good practice it has since adopted itself, then I want to point out the double standard.

Hybrid journals raise a host of other issues not covered by the questions above. For example, APS applies its program retroactively, and will make any of its previous articles OA if someone, anyone, pays to ransom it. Cambridge includes participating OA articles in the print editions of its journals. APS is explicit that its hybrid program "represents a path by which APS could gradually transition to full Open Access."

A word about Open Access publication

2010-06-15T13:17:00.001-07:00

iMedPub is an Open Access publisher. This means that all papers published can be accessed and downloaded for free by anyone. The Open Access movement evolved from the difficulties clinicians and researchers had accessing important work in their field because of the financial barriers put up by the traditional limited access publishers. This has sometimes meant that research paid for from public funds can only be accessed by the reader on payment of a fee.

To the author, Open Access means there is a processing fee for the paper. This is to cover the editorial costs of the submissions, publication, and archiving of your paper. Many journals now use this model and many research funders require publication in Open Access journals – so much so that many will pay the publication fee. If you are unsure about this in regard to your own work, contact your funding body or the institution where you did the work and ask if they do this.

Open Access publishing is only possible because of electronic publication. All iMedPub journals are published electronically and amongst a number of things this means that your paper can be accessed by anyone from any part of the world. It also means that papers are not rejected because of print constraints or size of the paper.

Open Access Publishing

2010-06-14T14:12:00.000-07:00

Authors who wish to make their articles Open Access can publish in a hybrid iMeDPub journal or in a full OA journal.

Open Access publishing in a hybrid journal

Hybrid journals are journals which are subject to just a part of the OA principles. In most cases the are offered by established publishers as Springer and Elsevier. Hybrid journals include a mix of OA and subscription-only articles (i.e. articles available only to paid subscribers). Authors who choose the OA option will usually be required to pay a fee to cover the costs of publication. However, the author will often be able to retain copyright in the article.

The advantage of publishing in a hybrid journal of established publishers is that the journal is part of the system with impact factors for print journals. Also, the author is not limited to the relatively small number of full OA journals in some research domains.

Author payments for publishing in hybrid journal must not merely add to the normal subscription cost, but rather reduce the cost. An increase in the author-financed articles has to provide a proportionate reduction in the costs. The more OA articles a journal offers, the lower the subscription rates for print journals (reflected in prices for the journal only two years later).

Hybrid journals are not limited to the choice models of journals of the established publishers. Sometimes, it may involve an author who has transferred some of his/her rights to the publisher, or a situation where permission for use is less far-reaching than is required for OA. In all cases, however, a published article is always accessible free of charge to everyone and the author or the organisation pays a publication fee.

Open Access publishing in a full OA journal

A full Open Access journal is defined as a scholarly journal in which all articles are published according to the principles of Open Access. The most important characteristics of an OA journal are:

The articles are accessible free of charge.
The author has granted a non-exclusive licence for wide (re)use.
The author holds copyright.
The journal conducts peer review.

Producing an OA journal is not without costs. The costs involved are for example for organising peer review, typesetting and indexing, marketing, setting up an Internet server and archiving. But now, it is not the reader who pays through a subscription or pay-per-view. The chosen business model determines who pays the publishing fees:

The author pays (or the academic institution involved).
The funding agency of the researchs pays (as part of a research grant).
Some journals have income from other publications, advertising, priced add-ons or auxiliary services; no fee or just a small fee is charged.

Who benefits from open access?

Authors

Labelling your work as open access makes it accessible to a broader, world-wide audience. It increases its visibility and impact and creates a solid basis for the advancement of your academic career. All the while you retain the copyright of your work and the freedom to use it anyway you wish.

Researchers

Science builds upon past achievements. If you are a researcher, open access allows you to build upon a larger body of free knowledge. Your ability to access the wisdom present across the globe becomes independent of the resources provided by your library and institution. Dive freely into the collective genius.

Scientific community

Open access is an all-around enhancer of scientific climate. It ignites collaboration between scientists and creates a richer and more effective science. By enabling wider dissemination of science and faster communication of research findings, open access exposes you to latest research developments and accelerates breakthroughs.

General public

As a member of the public, you pay for taxpayer-funded research, so you should have free access to it. Open access makes cutting-edge research available to ordinary people, maximizing the benefits of scientific developments.

Libraries and universities

Open access literature significantly alleviates the pressure on library budgets created by the inflation of subscription prices for scientific literature. This enhances the library resources, catering to a hive of researchers in quest of their academic goals, which in turn reflects positively on university's research profile and rating.

Funding agencies

Institutions spending money on research want the widest possible dissemination of the work they have funded and free access to its outputs. They want better management, monitoring and assessment of their funding. Open access makes all of this easier.

Learn more about open access

Definitions

Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002)

Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003)

Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003)

Resources

Open Access Scholarly Information Source Book (OASIS)

Open Access Tracking Project

When Is Open Access Not Open Access?

Science Dissemination Using Open Access: E-Book

Open Access Blogger Peter Suber

Citation Rates In Open Access Articles

oMedPub, our blog on open Medical Publishing

Organizations and Events

Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resource Coalition (SPARC)

Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (Oaspa)

Open Access Week

Why Be a Medical Editor?

2010-06-13T07:07:00.000-07:00

Thousands of medical journals exist, and new ones are published each year. Curiously, despite a vast "market" for medical editors, the field has no career track, no training programs, no faculty, no schools, and no classes. Few medical students set out to become medical editors. Instead, editors spring from physicians of all stripes: those who like to write and have shown a propensity to do so; specialists and subspecialists skilled in their own domain; and physicians who have served as associate editors or as members of a journal's editorial board. With the exception of a few dozen journal editors who do their jobs full time, most medical editors work part time, sharing their editorial work with other research, education, and patient care duties.

I write about editing from some experience. During my recent tenure as editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine I presided over 425 weekly issues of the Journal. I made countless decisions about which manuscripts to accept, which to reject, and which to revise. I edited manuscripts, sometimes extensively. With a staff of outstanding dedication and excellence, I introduced multiple new clinical features and initiated series of articles on many topics, including quality of care, delivery of health care, and the techniques of molecular medicine. I added enriching graphics, redesigned the Journal's format, introduced one of the first medical journal Web sites, and wrote more than 60 editorials. I shortened the time for handling manuscripts by a third and set a friendly tone between our editors and authors who sent us their work.

Even though a career path to medical editing is rather nebulous, I would encourage medical students who aspire to spend part of their career as a medical editor. A medical journal is a special part of the world of medicine. The reports of original research are a fundamental underpinning of most journals. Research projects are simply not complete unless the work has been subjected to evaluation by a researcher's peers, published in a journal, and exposed to criticism by the medical community.

This process of peer review selects out papers that are authoritative, usually novel, and often important to the advancement of medicine. In turn, these papers become the foundation for further research and the basis of day-to-day medical practices. Often the process of successful editorial peer review and publishing is a critical determinant of an author's academic advancement. Another special purpose of a medical journal is to publish material that informs a variety of medical, social, economic, and political subjects such as abortion, assisted suicide, fatalities from handguns, and the medical use of marijuana.

Because medical editors bear some of the responsibility for the reliability of published research and, in turn, for the care of patients, the health of the public, allocation of resources, and standards of medical ethics and professional behavior, editors must be trustworthy. Readers must believe that editors will make sound and even-handed decisions, that they will be open to many points of view, and that they will select or reject material only on the basis of merit, and certainly not for business or political reasons. To preserve this trust, an editor must avoid giving favors, must not be beholden to any special-interest group, and must be willing to publish articles on controversial subjects, even if they involve the organization that owns and publishes the journal.

In order for editors to preserve freedom of action and expression, they must have no conflicts of interest that might bias them in choosing reviewers, making editorial decisions, or issuing public statements. Editors cannot be influenced by whether individual decisions will affect their journal's profitability, for example. Complete separation of editorial decisions from financial issues, therefore, is essential to ensuring the editor's independence. If it becomes known that an editor's judgment can be influenced by extraneous factors such as income from specific advertisements, the journal will lose the respect of its readers.

Editors are often visualized sitting at a desk struggling over one manuscript after another. They do that, but they do far more. They think about how electronic publishing and emerging sources of information will affect their journal. They develop and adhere to certain principles of publishing that authors and journalists sometimes find irritating. They deal with endless calls from journalists about papers they are publishing. They must be creative in envisioning the future of their discipline; they must try to discern not only what their readers might want, but, more importantly, what their readers need. They watch the medical, social, and economic events that are shaping medicine. Like editors of newspapers, magazines, and other media, they have a bully pulpit that they can exploit to benefit medicine. By commenting on contentious issues and conflicts, a skilled editor can contribute to the important debates of the times.

Few people will make their entire careers in medical editing, but many will spend years at it. If you have a creative spark and a love of language, if you derive pleasure from helping others improve their work, if you think that you can help inform the discussions about the future of medicine, and if you have thick skin, an editor's job is worth contemplating.

Jerome P. Kassirer, MD
Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass, and Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn