JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
Vol. XXIV, No. 6 Printed in U S A .
Copyright 0 1976 by the American Geriatrics Society
The Right (?) to Know* CHARLES E. LYGHT, MD**
Oklawaha, Florida ABSTRACT No author whose paper has been rejected has need to feel chastened, sad, or dejected; but neither should he, since his text ran lame, seek others with whom to share the blame. Folks who review and persons who edit scarcely deserve a minus credit; their thoughtful counsel perhaps can assist in bringing changes otherwise missed. A willingly swallowed sound suggestion seldom results in indigestion. The aim to improve is certainly twice as vital as knowing who gave the advice. Instead of requiring identity, a far better plan, it seems to me, is for all concerned now to agree that no one need shoot the referee!
What is due the author of a rejected manuscript? First, he (Oops! he/she) deserves to be notified as promptly as feasible, in language as clear and courteous as the editor can employ. Second, his (Sorry! hisher) manuscript should not, during review, be so marked or marred as to require retyping if submittal elsewhere is elected. Third, he (Aw, shucks! stet) should be informed clearly why his material did not prove acceptable to the journal of his choice. This courtesy impresses me as the editor‘s inescapable obligation. It offers the author opportunity to weigh and, ideally, to implement constructive criticism. The end result can be rewarding improvement, with greater likelihood of publication of this or subsequent articles, in this or other journals. No fourth step is listed here, because I have not succumbed to the fervid promotion pressed by those advocates of “review in the sunshine” who assert that the identity of referees must be disclosed routinely whenever a paper fails to win journal space. I have thought that a journal selects and a p points an eminent Editorial Board, not as a blatant approach to a brag-from-the-masthead, but as expert aid to its editors as they attempt to provide interesting, valid, timely information for * Editorial Musings.
** FACP, FAGS; Editor in Chief, The Journal of The American Geriatrics Society; Editor, The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, 1947-1966. Address: Coronado Pines, Rte. 2, Box 388, Oklawaha, FL 32679. 285
readers. For like reasons, special referees drawn from appropriate disciplines are enlisted whenever essential to assist in assessing controversial or highly technical presentations. In a word, the review process -the sifting, the weighing- is a vital, integral part of internal journal management and operation. If this meticulous scrutiny of offerings eventually carries outside the organization so as to stimulate better authorship, bravo! This is a most g r a t e i n g (though secondary) result, but is admittedly an unpredictable plus. In our own sphere of activity, reviewers are expected to act as advisers to The Journal, not as instructors of potential or actual authors. The editor, however, can, with grace and humility, offer or transmit advice to would-be contributors. When advisors of known stature and integrity are invited to cooperate, I find that almost always they hope for reassurance that they will not, through serving the journal, become involved in contentious, sometimes endless, correspondence or telephone debates with disap pointed or disgruntled authors. In my opinion, referees do not try to hide behind a veil of mystery or anonymity, as some critics have charged indiscriminately without visible substantiation. What reviewers do crave, apparently, is opportunity to help the journal and its editors in an advisory, impartial capacity, working under conditions of ethical privacy. Never yet have I found a consultant to be curt, malicious, dishonest, biased, abrasive, or abusive. Always I have found I could convey critical assessment to the person primarily responsible and logically most interested -the author -either verbatim or so scrupulously paraphrased (and sometimes
CHARLES E. LYGHT
editorially expanded) as to be of maximum benefit. Many a “Thank You” letter proves the point. I have not observed, nor am I at all convinced, that the further step, as insisted upon by some, of revealing the identity of one or more referees will achieve anything additional. Minimally, it may serve merely to satisfy personal curiosity. Perhaps it may comfort a neophyte writer, who can ease his frustration with the ego-propping recollection that his paper was turned down by a celebrity, a renowned authority. But just as possibly, it may prove a red flag to confront, anger and arouse the suspicions of some sensitive soul-who ends up alleging that his comely brain-child was slighted and snubbed by the prejudiced parent of more favored progeny. Thank heaven, paranoia enters the scene but rarely! Only occasionally I sense a situation in which (for reasons of desirable clarity or to ensure maximum benefit of available expertise) it seems that direct comment from reviewer to contributor may be productive. In such event, I inquire about the referee’s willingness to act on that basis in this particular circumstance. Usually, a gracious affirmative is forthcoming. Sometimes, though, the busy reviewer begs the editor to continue in the role of intermediary, thus avoiding interminable argument, lost time and added expense. The hue and cry for full-disclosure-of-everything-to-everyone has popular appeal nowadays when dirty tricks, political or otherwise, are rightly being exposed, scorned and eliminated. We must support all such laudable efforts, properly conducted. But why insist that the spotlight be directed at areas where dirty tricks are not in vogue? Or why use it in circumstances when no demonstrated need or advantage is discernible? Conversely, should editors now commence opening their files to permit the cataloguing of authors of rejects? After all, these dedicated, though unsuccessful, aspirants may merit recognition for having worked long and tried hard. (Even a baseball box-score records strikeouts as well as hits!) So, why should only the published literature earn medical accolade? Furthermore, will authors, once they are granted full-disclosure rights, next be encouraged by some future avant garde clamor to demand not only the identity of reviewers aRer the fact, but a voice in the choice of consultants prior to evaluation of a manuscript? Some of these tongue-in-cheek questions may yet prove prophetic and less outlandish than they now may sound. 286
VOl. XXIV
Zealots, who often excel at restating the obvious, warn us: No authors, no journals. Just as surely arises the truism: No journals, no place to which either authors or readers can turn. The commonsense approach is rather that authors and editors, referees and Editorial Boards, jointly serve and complement one another, ultimately enriching the readers. The aim should be to enhance as well as to expand the literature, facilitate readership, extend knowledge, and strengthen the practice of good quality medicine. Only in an atmosphere of mutual trust, understanding and cooperation can the medical publishing system flourish and survive. There should be no dictators at any point in the chain. Giveand-take is the approved working pattern. An editor need not invoke plural responsibility when rejection of a paper hinges on such inbuilt faults as poor or obscure writing, the subject’s being entirely outside the journal’s field of coverage, its being sadly outdated, too long for the editorial space that must be equitably apportioned, or too circumscribed, esoteric, or unduly statistical to prove interesting and valuable to a respectable proportion of the readership. In ruling negatively on the basis of these shortcomings or other purely journalistic flaws, the editor should leave no doubt that the decision is his. Yet, when the guiding adverse opinion is referee-derived and has to do with such considerations as scientific validity, size of sample, study design and execution, adequacy of controls, interpretation of results, or unnecessary further floods into already clogged channels in the literature, the final option is still the editor’s. Managerially, he cannot shirk this prime responsibility. His is and has to be the last word. It is his job to pass the explanatory “regrets” on to the author. But he must invariably be careful to paint his consultants as advisers, not adversaries; as guides, not guerrillas. This concept, one that I have held and honored for many years, spells out the difference between opinion - something that is expertly supplied to the journal, and decision - something that is thoughtfully and kindly announced to the author. Both pieces of information, within reasonable limits of fairness, are the author’s due. Not necessarily should he receive a detailed Who’s Who or a documented whodunit. If communication is reinforced by every helpful comment the editor can pass on to the author, the referee system can and does work. This has been my own heartening experience.
Vol. XXIV, No. 6 Printed in U S A .
Copyright 0 1976 by the American Geriatrics Society
The Right (?) to Know* CHARLES E. LYGHT, MD**
Oklawaha, Florida ABSTRACT No author whose paper has been rejected has need to feel chastened, sad, or dejected; but neither should he, since his text ran lame, seek others with whom to share the blame. Folks who review and persons who edit scarcely deserve a minus credit; their thoughtful counsel perhaps can assist in bringing changes otherwise missed. A willingly swallowed sound suggestion seldom results in indigestion. The aim to improve is certainly twice as vital as knowing who gave the advice. Instead of requiring identity, a far better plan, it seems to me, is for all concerned now to agree that no one need shoot the referee!
What is due the author of a rejected manuscript? First, he (Oops! he/she) deserves to be notified as promptly as feasible, in language as clear and courteous as the editor can employ. Second, his (Sorry! hisher) manuscript should not, during review, be so marked or marred as to require retyping if submittal elsewhere is elected. Third, he (Aw, shucks! stet) should be informed clearly why his material did not prove acceptable to the journal of his choice. This courtesy impresses me as the editor‘s inescapable obligation. It offers the author opportunity to weigh and, ideally, to implement constructive criticism. The end result can be rewarding improvement, with greater likelihood of publication of this or subsequent articles, in this or other journals. No fourth step is listed here, because I have not succumbed to the fervid promotion pressed by those advocates of “review in the sunshine” who assert that the identity of referees must be disclosed routinely whenever a paper fails to win journal space. I have thought that a journal selects and a p points an eminent Editorial Board, not as a blatant approach to a brag-from-the-masthead, but as expert aid to its editors as they attempt to provide interesting, valid, timely information for * Editorial Musings.
** FACP, FAGS; Editor in Chief, The Journal of The American Geriatrics Society; Editor, The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, 1947-1966. Address: Coronado Pines, Rte. 2, Box 388, Oklawaha, FL 32679. 285
readers. For like reasons, special referees drawn from appropriate disciplines are enlisted whenever essential to assist in assessing controversial or highly technical presentations. In a word, the review process -the sifting, the weighing- is a vital, integral part of internal journal management and operation. If this meticulous scrutiny of offerings eventually carries outside the organization so as to stimulate better authorship, bravo! This is a most g r a t e i n g (though secondary) result, but is admittedly an unpredictable plus. In our own sphere of activity, reviewers are expected to act as advisers to The Journal, not as instructors of potential or actual authors. The editor, however, can, with grace and humility, offer or transmit advice to would-be contributors. When advisors of known stature and integrity are invited to cooperate, I find that almost always they hope for reassurance that they will not, through serving the journal, become involved in contentious, sometimes endless, correspondence or telephone debates with disap pointed or disgruntled authors. In my opinion, referees do not try to hide behind a veil of mystery or anonymity, as some critics have charged indiscriminately without visible substantiation. What reviewers do crave, apparently, is opportunity to help the journal and its editors in an advisory, impartial capacity, working under conditions of ethical privacy. Never yet have I found a consultant to be curt, malicious, dishonest, biased, abrasive, or abusive. Always I have found I could convey critical assessment to the person primarily responsible and logically most interested -the author -either verbatim or so scrupulously paraphrased (and sometimes
CHARLES E. LYGHT
editorially expanded) as to be of maximum benefit. Many a “Thank You” letter proves the point. I have not observed, nor am I at all convinced, that the further step, as insisted upon by some, of revealing the identity of one or more referees will achieve anything additional. Minimally, it may serve merely to satisfy personal curiosity. Perhaps it may comfort a neophyte writer, who can ease his frustration with the ego-propping recollection that his paper was turned down by a celebrity, a renowned authority. But just as possibly, it may prove a red flag to confront, anger and arouse the suspicions of some sensitive soul-who ends up alleging that his comely brain-child was slighted and snubbed by the prejudiced parent of more favored progeny. Thank heaven, paranoia enters the scene but rarely! Only occasionally I sense a situation in which (for reasons of desirable clarity or to ensure maximum benefit of available expertise) it seems that direct comment from reviewer to contributor may be productive. In such event, I inquire about the referee’s willingness to act on that basis in this particular circumstance. Usually, a gracious affirmative is forthcoming. Sometimes, though, the busy reviewer begs the editor to continue in the role of intermediary, thus avoiding interminable argument, lost time and added expense. The hue and cry for full-disclosure-of-everything-to-everyone has popular appeal nowadays when dirty tricks, political or otherwise, are rightly being exposed, scorned and eliminated. We must support all such laudable efforts, properly conducted. But why insist that the spotlight be directed at areas where dirty tricks are not in vogue? Or why use it in circumstances when no demonstrated need or advantage is discernible? Conversely, should editors now commence opening their files to permit the cataloguing of authors of rejects? After all, these dedicated, though unsuccessful, aspirants may merit recognition for having worked long and tried hard. (Even a baseball box-score records strikeouts as well as hits!) So, why should only the published literature earn medical accolade? Furthermore, will authors, once they are granted full-disclosure rights, next be encouraged by some future avant garde clamor to demand not only the identity of reviewers aRer the fact, but a voice in the choice of consultants prior to evaluation of a manuscript? Some of these tongue-in-cheek questions may yet prove prophetic and less outlandish than they now may sound. 286
VOl. XXIV
Zealots, who often excel at restating the obvious, warn us: No authors, no journals. Just as surely arises the truism: No journals, no place to which either authors or readers can turn. The commonsense approach is rather that authors and editors, referees and Editorial Boards, jointly serve and complement one another, ultimately enriching the readers. The aim should be to enhance as well as to expand the literature, facilitate readership, extend knowledge, and strengthen the practice of good quality medicine. Only in an atmosphere of mutual trust, understanding and cooperation can the medical publishing system flourish and survive. There should be no dictators at any point in the chain. Giveand-take is the approved working pattern. An editor need not invoke plural responsibility when rejection of a paper hinges on such inbuilt faults as poor or obscure writing, the subject’s being entirely outside the journal’s field of coverage, its being sadly outdated, too long for the editorial space that must be equitably apportioned, or too circumscribed, esoteric, or unduly statistical to prove interesting and valuable to a respectable proportion of the readership. In ruling negatively on the basis of these shortcomings or other purely journalistic flaws, the editor should leave no doubt that the decision is his. Yet, when the guiding adverse opinion is referee-derived and has to do with such considerations as scientific validity, size of sample, study design and execution, adequacy of controls, interpretation of results, or unnecessary further floods into already clogged channels in the literature, the final option is still the editor’s. Managerially, he cannot shirk this prime responsibility. His is and has to be the last word. It is his job to pass the explanatory “regrets” on to the author. But he must invariably be careful to paint his consultants as advisers, not adversaries; as guides, not guerrillas. This concept, one that I have held and honored for many years, spells out the difference between opinion - something that is expertly supplied to the journal, and decision - something that is thoughtfully and kindly announced to the author. Both pieces of information, within reasonable limits of fairness, are the author’s due. Not necessarily should he receive a detailed Who’s Who or a documented whodunit. If communication is reinforced by every helpful comment the editor can pass on to the author, the referee system can and does work. This has been my own heartening experience.
