Impressive growth, high world rankings and excellent impact factors demonstrate strength of Informa Healthcare’s comprehensive portfolio of highly respected publications.
LONDON – Monday, 29 June 2009 – Informa Healthcare – one of the world’s leading medical and scientific publishing groups – has announced highlights of its latest journal Impact Factor results, with impressive results across the division’s comprehensive range of titles. The company’s highly respected range of Expert Opinion titles performed notably well, with significant jumps for Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy which is up almost 20% to 3.475 and Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets, up more than 21% to 4.038. Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs leads the series with a 2008 Impact Factor of 4.058 and two new titles – Expert Opinion on Drug Safety and Expert Opinion on Metabolism & Toxicology, registered sensational first ever Impact Factors of 3.073 and 3.069, respectively.
The company’s Critical Reviews in Toxicology also registered an outstanding impact factor of 7.204, up more than 40% and now ranked 2nd out of 75 journals in toxicology – with 1st place being an annual publication as compared with Critical Reviews in Toxicology’s ten issues per year.
Impact factors are a method of measuring the influence which a journal has on the scientific community. They are calculated by Thomson Reuters and are designed to indicate how many times the published articles of a journal are cited during the course of a year, providing an insight to how much ‘impact’ the journal is making on its audiences.
“Impact Factors provide us with a measure for the importance of our journals to the medical and scientific communities we serve,” explains Phil Garner, Publishing Director at Informa Healthcare. “We are delighted with the performance of our market leading titles as well as some new journals which have posted excellent first time results.”
“Our Expert Opinion range of titles – which provides in-depth analysis of the pharmaceutical R&D pipeline – has registered impressive gains across the board and first ever Impact Factors of above three for our two new titles is testament to the quality of information that goes into our journals,” says Phil. “These results give a big ‘thumbs up’ to the comprehensive, intelligent content which make these titles the definitive reference source for leading pharmaceutical scientists.”
Other Informa Healthcare journals that have performed well are the Journal of Drug Targeting – up to 2.771, Inhalation Toxicology – up to 2.403, International Reviews of Immunology with a 37% increase to 4.935, the International Journal of Radiation Biology – up 48% to 2.178, and first ever IF’s for The Aging Male – at 2.622, and Prehospital Emergency Care at 1.248, now ranked in the top half of 13 journals in the emergency medicine category.
Informa’s Scandinavian titles also performed well: Fifteen out of twenty five registered increased impact factors and eighteen with impact factors of over 1.00. The International Journal of Pediatric Obesity registered 3.984 in just its second year, up almost 100% from 2.00 in 2000. World Journal of Biological Psychiatry was also up by more than 111% to 3.582. The division’s flagship journal, Annals of Medicine, registered an impact factor of 5.435 with some 78% of the group’s Scandinavian journals registering impact factors.
“We are justifiably proud of the performance of all of our journals,” adds Phil. “Our new titles have done very well and our established journals have continued to go from strength to strength, with an impressive number of them moving many places up in their respective rankings.”
Informa’s results, across its wide range of journals, are remarkable: The International Journal on the Biology of Stress is up to 2.952; The Journal of Protein Folding Disorders is up to 1.714; The International Journal of Audiology has an Impact Factor of 1.201; The Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology is up 67% to 1.585, and Platelets is up to 2.271 – a rise of almost 20% over last year. In addition, the Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability has increased to 0.902 and Pathology to 2.324.
“Our overall performance – together with the outstanding individual performances of many of our titles – ensures that Informa continues to serve as a leading force in medical and scientific publishing, providing the market with the lion’s share of must-read titles,” explains Phil.
Monday, 29 June 2009
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Scholar One 'submitting agent' feature activated for Expert Opinion journals
Medical communication agencies can now submit manuscripts to Expert Opinion journals as third party, on behalf of the authors .
The name of the submitting agent will not appear in the authors' list and both the submitting agent and the corresponding author will receive emails from the editorial team regarding the manuscript.
The submitting person must now identify itself as an author or a third-party submitting agent at the first step of the submission process.
This feature has been activated for the following journals using the Scholar One submission platform:
The name of the submitting agent will not appear in the authors' list and both the submitting agent and the corresponding author will receive emails from the editorial team regarding the manuscript.
The submitting person must now identify itself as an author or a third-party submitting agent at the first step of the submission process.This feature has been activated for the following journals using the Scholar One submission platform:
- Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy
- Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets
- Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs
- Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy
- Expert Opinion on Metabolism and Toxicology
- Expert Opinion on Drug Safety
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Award winning research at the Dutch Atherosclerosis Symposium, 2009
The years to come are going to be very busy for persons working in the field of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease. Basic-science researchers are hot on the trail of targeted drugs that will be much more focused than available drugs, and some remarkable progress is being made. The 12th Dutch Atherosclerosis Symposium took place on March 12 and 13, 2009 and showcased some of this progress taking place in the Netherlands. I would like to briefly present 4 of the interesting research topics that received jury awards.
Exercise
Meissner et al.1 investigated the effect of exercise on cholesterol metabolism in mice either exposed to voluntary running wheel for 2 weeks or which remained sedentary. Exercise appears to increase cholesterol and bile acids turnover via specific changes in the intestine that decrease intestinal bile acid and cholesterol absorption and promote their fecal excretion. If the same holds true in humans, exercised-induced modulation of bile acids and cholesterol turnover leading to reduced plasma cholesterol levels might contribute to the beneficial effects of exercise on cardiovascular disease.
Cathepsin inhibition
The research aim of Waard et al.2 is to develop pharmaceutical therapies for abdominal aortic aneurysm to prevent surgical intervention in elderly patients. They have previously shown that cathepsins are functionally involved in collagen degradation in human aneurysm tissue. In the present study they showed that E64 (a cathepsin inhibitor) treatment resulted in a decreased number and severity of aneurysms and in a less inflammatory profile in serum in a mouse model. The inhibition of cathepsins may be therefore an attractive therapeutic approach to prevent aortic aneurysms expansion.
Microarray antigen chip
The immune system is thought to play an important role in initiation and progression of atherosclerosis. Den Dekker et al.3 aimed to explore the potential of auto-antibody profiles as a biomarker for a cardiovascular event. A generic version of the antigen microarray was used bearing over 740 proteins related to a variety of conditions including immune regulation, inflammation, angiogenesis, apoptosis and more. The antigen microarray was able to identify patients with previous myocardial infarction with a high sensitivity and specificity. In conclusion, a microarray antigen chip may be used as a novel biomarker for cardiovascular disease.
Nuclear receptor Nurr1
Bonta et al.4 have investigated the role of nuclear receptor Nurr1 in stent restenosis. They found that Nurr1 is expressed in human in-stent restenosis lesions. Nurr1 inhibits inflammatory gene expression in both macrophages and smooth muscle cells and it inhibits proliferation of smooth muscle cells. In vivo Nurr1 reduces neointima formation in mice. Small-molecule drugs have been identified that enhance the transcriptional activity of this nuclear receptor. It seems therefore that Nurr1 may be an attractive novel target for local intervention against in-stent neointima formation.
Comment
Genetics and biochemistry have now become the unchallenged leaders of cardiovascular research. New drugs to be soon perfected together with the immense progress in the invasive field will completely change the cardiology that we all knew.
By: Sandrin C. Bergheanu, MD, Dept. of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (s.c.bergheanu@lumc.nl)
References
1. Maxi Meissner et al., Department of Pediatrics, University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands. E-mail: M.Meissner@med.umcg.nl
2. Vivian de Waard et al. Division of Biopharmaceutics of the Leiden/Amsterdam Center for Drug Research, Leiden and Department of Medical Biochemistry, AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: v.dewaard@amc.uva.nl
3. Wijnand den Dekker et al. Molecular Cardiology Laboratory, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
4. Peter Bonta et al. Department of Medical Biochemistry, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, The Nertherlands. E-mail: P.I.Bonta@amc.uva.nl
Exercise
Meissner et al.1 investigated the effect of exercise on cholesterol metabolism in mice either exposed to voluntary running wheel for 2 weeks or which remained sedentary. Exercise appears to increase cholesterol and bile acids turnover via specific changes in the intestine that decrease intestinal bile acid and cholesterol absorption and promote their fecal excretion. If the same holds true in humans, exercised-induced modulation of bile acids and cholesterol turnover leading to reduced plasma cholesterol levels might contribute to the beneficial effects of exercise on cardiovascular disease.
Cathepsin inhibition
The research aim of Waard et al.2 is to develop pharmaceutical therapies for abdominal aortic aneurysm to prevent surgical intervention in elderly patients. They have previously shown that cathepsins are functionally involved in collagen degradation in human aneurysm tissue. In the present study they showed that E64 (a cathepsin inhibitor) treatment resulted in a decreased number and severity of aneurysms and in a less inflammatory profile in serum in a mouse model. The inhibition of cathepsins may be therefore an attractive therapeutic approach to prevent aortic aneurysms expansion.
Microarray antigen chip
The immune system is thought to play an important role in initiation and progression of atherosclerosis. Den Dekker et al.3 aimed to explore the potential of auto-antibody profiles as a biomarker for a cardiovascular event. A generic version of the antigen microarray was used bearing over 740 proteins related to a variety of conditions including immune regulation, inflammation, angiogenesis, apoptosis and more. The antigen microarray was able to identify patients with previous myocardial infarction with a high sensitivity and specificity. In conclusion, a microarray antigen chip may be used as a novel biomarker for cardiovascular disease.
Nuclear receptor Nurr1
Bonta et al.4 have investigated the role of nuclear receptor Nurr1 in stent restenosis. They found that Nurr1 is expressed in human in-stent restenosis lesions. Nurr1 inhibits inflammatory gene expression in both macrophages and smooth muscle cells and it inhibits proliferation of smooth muscle cells. In vivo Nurr1 reduces neointima formation in mice. Small-molecule drugs have been identified that enhance the transcriptional activity of this nuclear receptor. It seems therefore that Nurr1 may be an attractive novel target for local intervention against in-stent neointima formation.
Comment
Genetics and biochemistry have now become the unchallenged leaders of cardiovascular research. New drugs to be soon perfected together with the immense progress in the invasive field will completely change the cardiology that we all knew.
By: Sandrin C. Bergheanu, MD, Dept. of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (s.c.bergheanu@lumc.nl)
References
1. Maxi Meissner et al., Department of Pediatrics, University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands. E-mail: M.Meissner@med.umcg.nl
2. Vivian de Waard et al. Division of Biopharmaceutics of the Leiden/Amsterdam Center for Drug Research, Leiden and Department of Medical Biochemistry, AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: v.dewaard@amc.uva.nl
3. Wijnand den Dekker et al. Molecular Cardiology Laboratory, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
4. Peter Bonta et al. Department of Medical Biochemistry, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, The Nertherlands. E-mail: P.I.Bonta@amc.uva.nl
Friday, 24 April 2009
Top 5 reasons why medical associations should maintain ties with industry
In the April 1st issue of JAMA, Rothman, et al. spelled out a proposal for controlling conflicts of interest that calls for professional medical associations (PMAs) to cut all ties with industry. PMA conferences, continuing education and practice guidelines often set the standard for patient care.
The proposal seems reactionary, albeit understandable given how quickly a handful of high-profile cases—particularly those involving failure to disclose—both blackened the eyes of science and eroded public trust.
But should a few bad apples be allowed to spoil the bunch? I say no. And here are the top 5 reasons why I propose just cutting all the bad apples loose and continuing to reap the best possible fruit.
1. Together, PMAs and industry actually do more good than harm. I could go on and on about all the good new drugs and devices have done for patient care, but we don’t have the space. I will say that I once had a 40-plus year old former patient stop me on the street to thank me for helping save his life. In my opinion, the kudos should have gone to the makers of the intra-aortic balloon pump that kept him alive while his heart recouped. Back in the day, he would never have survived that event regardless of how good the care was.
2. Industry doesn’t have as much power as you think. Industry’s power is diluted by nurses, patients and grass-roots patient advocacy groups, who together wield big clubs called prescriptive pressure and noncompliance: if a drug or device doesn’t work, nurses won’t give it, or patients won’t use it. And don’t forget the 800-lb. gorilla in the room—third-party payers—who have more power than drug and device companies over treatment guidelines and who gets what and when.
3. Industry is on the same side of the fiduciary coin as PMAs. Industry wants to save lives, too. They also want safe and ethical care. If you don’t believe that take a look at how pharma manufactures have come together to police themselves. Visit http://www.phrma.org/ and click on their outline for a revised marketing code.
4. Physicians are business people too. Physicians can’t cut ties with industry; they are industry. We like to believe that pure professionalism lies at the heart of medicine, but the drivers of treatment guidelines, namely the individual physicians and their associations, are in business. Profit isn’t a palatable word, so let’s call what they do “earning a living.” Besides, physicians can cross the line without help from the drug and device part of the industry, as evidence by anti-kickback laws that have more to do with unethical patient referrals than branded pens and notepads.
5. Together, PMAs and industry are on the ethically right path. In the Association of American Medical Colleges’ “The scientific basis of influence and reciprocity: A symposium” the authors show how self-interest can unconsciously bias even those of us who have the best of intentions, but they also demonstrate how just being reminded of an honor code stops cheating completely regardless of the amount of reward. Full transparency is a kind of honor-code reminder, and a huge step in the ethically right direction for all parties involved.
Sources:
Rothman DJ, McDonald WJ, Berkowitz CD, et al. Professional Medical Associations and their relationships with industry. JAMA 2009; 301: 1367–72
Korn D, Ehringhaus SH. Association of American Medical Colleges, The scientific basis of influence and reciprocity: A symposium. 2007. Available at: www.aamc.org/publications Association of American Medical Colleges, Industry funding of medical education: report of an AAMC task force. 2008. Available at: www.aamc.org/publications
Written by Terri Metules.
The proposal seems reactionary, albeit understandable given how quickly a handful of high-profile cases—particularly those involving failure to disclose—both blackened the eyes of science and eroded public trust.
But should a few bad apples be allowed to spoil the bunch? I say no. And here are the top 5 reasons why I propose just cutting all the bad apples loose and continuing to reap the best possible fruit.
1. Together, PMAs and industry actually do more good than harm. I could go on and on about all the good new drugs and devices have done for patient care, but we don’t have the space. I will say that I once had a 40-plus year old former patient stop me on the street to thank me for helping save his life. In my opinion, the kudos should have gone to the makers of the intra-aortic balloon pump that kept him alive while his heart recouped. Back in the day, he would never have survived that event regardless of how good the care was.
2. Industry doesn’t have as much power as you think. Industry’s power is diluted by nurses, patients and grass-roots patient advocacy groups, who together wield big clubs called prescriptive pressure and noncompliance: if a drug or device doesn’t work, nurses won’t give it, or patients won’t use it. And don’t forget the 800-lb. gorilla in the room—third-party payers—who have more power than drug and device companies over treatment guidelines and who gets what and when.
3. Industry is on the same side of the fiduciary coin as PMAs. Industry wants to save lives, too. They also want safe and ethical care. If you don’t believe that take a look at how pharma manufactures have come together to police themselves. Visit http://www.phrma.org/ and click on their outline for a revised marketing code.
4. Physicians are business people too. Physicians can’t cut ties with industry; they are industry. We like to believe that pure professionalism lies at the heart of medicine, but the drivers of treatment guidelines, namely the individual physicians and their associations, are in business. Profit isn’t a palatable word, so let’s call what they do “earning a living.” Besides, physicians can cross the line without help from the drug and device part of the industry, as evidence by anti-kickback laws that have more to do with unethical patient referrals than branded pens and notepads.
5. Together, PMAs and industry are on the ethically right path. In the Association of American Medical Colleges’ “The scientific basis of influence and reciprocity: A symposium” the authors show how self-interest can unconsciously bias even those of us who have the best of intentions, but they also demonstrate how just being reminded of an honor code stops cheating completely regardless of the amount of reward. Full transparency is a kind of honor-code reminder, and a huge step in the ethically right direction for all parties involved.
Sources:
Rothman DJ, McDonald WJ, Berkowitz CD, et al. Professional Medical Associations and their relationships with industry. JAMA 2009; 301: 1367–72
Korn D, Ehringhaus SH. Association of American Medical Colleges, The scientific basis of influence and reciprocity: A symposium. 2007. Available at: www.aamc.org/publications Association of American Medical Colleges, Industry funding of medical education: report of an AAMC task force. 2008. Available at: www.aamc.org/publications
Written by Terri Metules.
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
The value of in vitro data in metabolic disease: Editorial Board member Keith Suckling comments on a review by Clapham et al.
It is not unusual to read at the end of a paper presenting new biology that the novel mechanism or process being described may be a target for pharmacological intervention. The data may well have been obtained from studies in cell culture, perhaps of an immortalised human cell line, perhaps from cells genetically manipulated, and the basic picture (given the rigours of the reviewing process) may be very convincing. But there is always a strong doubt in the reader’s mind. This is because the pathway from a novel and potentially relevant piece of biology to a new drug with demonstrated clinical value is long and hazardous. At this early stage, the relevance to human disease may be little more than a hypothesis, and data of all kinds will be required as drug discovery and development takes place to validate the target.
It has been recognised for many years that one of the major problems to address is how to develop sufficient confidence in a target or agent to allow the major financial commitment that is required to be made. We need confidence that the cell culture models are relevant to an intact animal, and that the data we obtain in a pre-clinical species has relevance to the situation in the patient. Such confidence is hard to obtain, particularly for novel biology. In this review [1], Clapham and colleagues lay out the ground for metabolic disease. Apart from offering a very clear analysis of the issues involved, they make a very useful contribution by illustrating the value of data on drug activity obtained from cell culture studies and from parallel studies in laboratory animals, both in relation to the observed effects in patients. This kind of information is not readily available: it is mostly held in the experience of specialised scientists, an asset that is all too easily lost in the major reorganisation of drug companies.
A central point in the problems clearly illustrated by Clapham et al. is the proper understanding of what a cell culture model or an in vivo model can be expected to achieve. The question has been addressed for animal models in the closely related area of dyslipidaemia [1], but, probably because the relevant data are very widely scattered in the literature, the aligning of in vitro, in vivo and human data has not been widely done. The analysis of Clapham and colleagues is a welcome example of what could be done. But we need to go further. As I have noted recently [3,4], I believe we need to be much more critical of what our models can achieve and what their limitations are. Only then, as Clapham et al. clearly illustrate, will we be able to offer a rigorous scientific foundation for the difficult investment decisions that have to be made.
1. Clapham J.C., Hallén S. (2009), Cell based in vitro and ex vivo models in metabolic disease drug discovery: nice to have or critical path?, Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery, 4: 417-428.
2. Suckling K.E. (2006), The ideal model in atherosclerosis and dyslipidaemia - does it exist? Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery 1: 507-511.
3. Suckling KE (2007), Top down meets bottom-up. The critical interface for drug discovery. International Atherosclerosis Society Commentary.
4. Suckling KE (2008) Animal research: too much faith in models clouds judgement. Nature (letter) 2008, 455, 460.
By Keith Suckling, PhD, Editorial Board member of Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents
It has been recognised for many years that one of the major problems to address is how to develop sufficient confidence in a target or agent to allow the major financial commitment that is required to be made. We need confidence that the cell culture models are relevant to an intact animal, and that the data we obtain in a pre-clinical species has relevance to the situation in the patient. Such confidence is hard to obtain, particularly for novel biology. In this review [1], Clapham and colleagues lay out the ground for metabolic disease. Apart from offering a very clear analysis of the issues involved, they make a very useful contribution by illustrating the value of data on drug activity obtained from cell culture studies and from parallel studies in laboratory animals, both in relation to the observed effects in patients. This kind of information is not readily available: it is mostly held in the experience of specialised scientists, an asset that is all too easily lost in the major reorganisation of drug companies.
A central point in the problems clearly illustrated by Clapham et al. is the proper understanding of what a cell culture model or an in vivo model can be expected to achieve. The question has been addressed for animal models in the closely related area of dyslipidaemia [1], but, probably because the relevant data are very widely scattered in the literature, the aligning of in vitro, in vivo and human data has not been widely done. The analysis of Clapham and colleagues is a welcome example of what could be done. But we need to go further. As I have noted recently [3,4], I believe we need to be much more critical of what our models can achieve and what their limitations are. Only then, as Clapham et al. clearly illustrate, will we be able to offer a rigorous scientific foundation for the difficult investment decisions that have to be made.
1. Clapham J.C., Hallén S. (2009), Cell based in vitro and ex vivo models in metabolic disease drug discovery: nice to have or critical path?, Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery, 4: 417-428.
2. Suckling K.E. (2006), The ideal model in atherosclerosis and dyslipidaemia - does it exist? Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery 1: 507-511.
3. Suckling KE (2007), Top down meets bottom-up. The critical interface for drug discovery. International Atherosclerosis Society Commentary.
4. Suckling KE (2008) Animal research: too much faith in models clouds judgement. Nature (letter) 2008, 455, 460.
By Keith Suckling, PhD, Editorial Board member of Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents
Friday, 27 March 2009
Open repositories VS the Publisher
On March 18th the MIT introduced a policy requiring all scholarly articles written by its faculty members to be made freely available in an open access repository. While researchers understandably applaud the free and open dissemination of data, there are questions that should be considered with regards to the impact of a growing number of open repositories on the value added by Publishers, and how this value would be retained if in the long term the open access journal turns out to be unsustainable.
How important is the value added by the Publisher (and this is not an open access versus non-open access journal debate)? While the peer review process is certainly not without its failings, to any Publisher or Editor worth their salt, the integrity of the peer review process is paramount. To quote a previous blog post on this site, an author of a CMRO article on receiving his peer review comments said "I have never received 58 referee comments on a manuscript less than 3000 words long, but the referees' comments and the revision definitely improved the paper." An author of a recent paper submitted to Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics fed back "a comment about the reviewers: it was clear that they read the manuscript carefully. Regardless of whether they agreed with some of our arguments, their comments reflected readers that thought about what they read. This is how peer review is supposed to work. Excellent reviewer selection on your part, and a thorough job on theirs." Aside from assisting the author in critically reviewing their work and ultimately leading to a better paper, without the peer review process how do we ensure no dangerously inaccurate information is published that is indistinguishable from high calibre scientific research?
And it’s not just in the peer review that value is added by the Publisher. Who checks references are cited correctly and terms are not misspelled - will the institutions running their own open access repositories employ copyeditors? Who will ensure the figures are legible and of good quality – will the institutions employ production editors who lay the work out in such a way that it is easy on the eye and doesn’t give readers a headache? Will there be any independent quality check before the research is published? With a limitless amount of potentially unqualified freely available literature, how will the busy physician who only has 5 minutes in his/her day to digest the most important findings even know where to start? These are just a few of the questions that would need to be answered.
Ok, I’m playing devil’s advocate a little here. I do not envisage a world where the peer-reviewed journal ceases to exist, but the open access model of publishing is widely debated, both in terms of quality and sustainability. So what is the future of publishing? Even if the open access, pay to publish model is viable in the long term, does the scientific community agree to paying to publish all of their work in the future, rather than pay to read the work of others? The fact is, publishing a journal is a costly business and the money has to come from somewhere. Publishers are accused of placing scientific research behind ‘commercial barriers’, but surely the same argument could be applied to the pay to publish model. Is it fair that only authors with funding can afford to have it published? Will this lead to a bias in the literature towards sponsored research, not even so much through the choices of the Editor, but through the fact that only authors who can pay can publish? Or is there an alternative, free to publish, free to read, sustainable model for open access publishing that still maintains high standards of peer review and editorial quality?
While Publishers undoubtedly need to take steps to ensure the advancement of science through the widest possible dissemination of research, with respect to the whole principal of open access, how do we do this for free? Surely someone, somewhere has to pay something?
In summary:
How important is the value added by the Publisher (and this is not an open access versus non-open access journal debate)? While the peer review process is certainly not without its failings, to any Publisher or Editor worth their salt, the integrity of the peer review process is paramount. To quote a previous blog post on this site, an author of a CMRO article on receiving his peer review comments said "I have never received 58 referee comments on a manuscript less than 3000 words long, but the referees' comments and the revision definitely improved the paper." An author of a recent paper submitted to Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics fed back "a comment about the reviewers: it was clear that they read the manuscript carefully. Regardless of whether they agreed with some of our arguments, their comments reflected readers that thought about what they read. This is how peer review is supposed to work. Excellent reviewer selection on your part, and a thorough job on theirs." Aside from assisting the author in critically reviewing their work and ultimately leading to a better paper, without the peer review process how do we ensure no dangerously inaccurate information is published that is indistinguishable from high calibre scientific research?
And it’s not just in the peer review that value is added by the Publisher. Who checks references are cited correctly and terms are not misspelled - will the institutions running their own open access repositories employ copyeditors? Who will ensure the figures are legible and of good quality – will the institutions employ production editors who lay the work out in such a way that it is easy on the eye and doesn’t give readers a headache? Will there be any independent quality check before the research is published? With a limitless amount of potentially unqualified freely available literature, how will the busy physician who only has 5 minutes in his/her day to digest the most important findings even know where to start? These are just a few of the questions that would need to be answered.
Ok, I’m playing devil’s advocate a little here. I do not envisage a world where the peer-reviewed journal ceases to exist, but the open access model of publishing is widely debated, both in terms of quality and sustainability. So what is the future of publishing? Even if the open access, pay to publish model is viable in the long term, does the scientific community agree to paying to publish all of their work in the future, rather than pay to read the work of others? The fact is, publishing a journal is a costly business and the money has to come from somewhere. Publishers are accused of placing scientific research behind ‘commercial barriers’, but surely the same argument could be applied to the pay to publish model. Is it fair that only authors with funding can afford to have it published? Will this lead to a bias in the literature towards sponsored research, not even so much through the choices of the Editor, but through the fact that only authors who can pay can publish? Or is there an alternative, free to publish, free to read, sustainable model for open access publishing that still maintains high standards of peer review and editorial quality?
While Publishers undoubtedly need to take steps to ensure the advancement of science through the widest possible dissemination of research, with respect to the whole principal of open access, how do we do this for free? Surely someone, somewhere has to pay something?
In summary:
- How important is value added by the Publisher?
- How will high calibre research be distinguished?
- How will the reader filter the wealth of freely available literature?
- Does the scientific community want to pay to publish all of their work in the future?
- Could this lead to bias in the literature?
- What if the pay to publish model doesn't work?
- Is there an alternative, free to publish, free to read, sustainable model for open access publishing that still maintains high standards of peer review and editorial quality?
By Anna Heinink, Publisher, Expert Opinion
Informa Pharmaceutical Science’s policy on NIH-funded research can be found here http://www.informapharmascience.com/page/resources/authors#nihfundedresearchFriday, 20 March 2009
Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents and Journal of Medical Economics selected for indexing in MEDLINE
Informa Pharmaceutical Science is delighted to announce that Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents (EOTP) and the Journal of Medical Economics (JME), have been selected for indexing in MEDLINE.
A widely used bibliographic database compiled and maintained by the US National Library of Medicine, MEDLINE is freely accessible via the PubMed search engine. It is worth noting that the decision by MEDLINE to index or not a journal is based on a review by the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee upon application. The main criteria for selection, which go beyond sound science and thorough peer review, are listed here.
We are very pleased by this decision which will deservedly increase the visibility of JME and EOTP articles.
A widely used bibliographic database compiled and maintained by the US National Library of Medicine, MEDLINE is freely accessible via the PubMed search engine. It is worth noting that the decision by MEDLINE to index or not a journal is based on a review by the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee upon application. The main criteria for selection, which go beyond sound science and thorough peer review, are listed here.
We are very pleased by this decision which will deservedly increase the visibility of JME and EOTP articles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
