JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY & BIOLOGY EDUCATION, December 2016, p. 331-332 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1155
Letters to the Editor
Publishing, Objectivity, and Prestige
To the Editor, Disseminating scientific knowledge and teaching responsible conduct to people involved in research and scientific activities is a prerequisite for the efficiency and integrity of scientific information (16). However, one important challenge scientists face today is conveying scientific information to the public clearly and directly (3). Another challenge is related to peer-review biases (11, 12) and high rejection rates based on subjective and unfounded arguments, particularly in some ‘snobbish’ journals. In fact, some journals reject up to 90% of manuscripts received, as they like to boast at every opportunity. Most of the rejections are made at the editorial desk without real peer reviews. Editors and reviewers in such journals seem to be instructed to reject as many papers as possible as an irrational strategy for prestige and elitism, which, in my view, is contrary to the essence of the scientific foundations that should focus on objectivity, fairness, and validity of the reported findings and thoughts rather than on superficial ‘prestige’ and evanescent buzz. Some editors and reviewers seem to associate ‘publishable’ papers to narrow and subjective criteria only. They consider that high rejection rates are a gage of high quality and that ‘true’ science is coming from star names or big labs only. Scientific knowledge, however, is much larger than this narrow-minded vision; it extends beyond the narrow confines of biology, chemistry, and physics to include theories, concepts, ideas, hypotheses, thoughts, understandings, etc. (14). Knowledge and scientific advancement also include the ability to analyze, to think critically, to think outside the box, to propose problem-oriented solutions, etc., which could be more useful and rewarding for the scientific community and society than studies reporting merely quantitative data and findings many of which are irreproducible or false in a number of cases (4). With such ‘rejective’ policy, bold, innovative challenges to either theoretical concepts or practical goals are frequently rejected as being contrary to dominant paradigms (13). It is, however, unlikely that the idiosyncrasies of the publication system would actually obstruct innovative ideas from dissemination; it is simply that their publication will be delayed (13), as most manuscripts are eventually published somewhere (10, 15). Although rejection hurts, it is not fatal (15). Indeed, there are many examples of papers rejected by the author’s first choice of journal that have then been published elsewhere and profoundly changed the way we interpret the world around us (13).
To reduce rejection biases, many potential solutions exist. Among them is to anonymize manuscript submission (6) so that the rejections made at the editorial desk are not influenced by subjective factors such as the author’s name, country, or gender, etc. Anonymized submission would allow submitting authors to undergo equal peer-review chances (8), which, in turn, would reduce editorial biases (7). Another approach is to empower research players and leaders to foster dialogue about ethics in research and in the work environment (5), as well as in the publishing industry, so that any bias related to superficial factors can be avoided or at least reduced. In the same way that providing firm instructions in research integrity should be an obligation, not an option (2), instructions for reducing ethical hazards in knowledge production (1) and in publishing integrity should also be issued and respected. A print-online hybrid publishing system in which print and online publication formats can co-exist could also be considered to reduce rejection biases in traditional print journals that argue ‘space limitations’ so that they can accept and publish more worthwhile articles in online formats only when the quotas for print versions are filled (9). In this context, here are tongue-in-cheek Instructions for Authors that would reflect some unspoken acceptance/ rejection policies in some snobbish—or even discriminatory—journals that seem to link manuscript acceptance to narrow and biased criteria: Only authors who fulfill our unspoken in-house benchmarks for prestige, celebrity, and elitism will be considered. The names of authors and/ or institutions should imply historical or actual grandiosity, splendor, and excellence. For example, authors from The Prestigious Spider Prostate Research Center (TPSPRC), The Elite School for Bat Wisdom Teeth Studies (TESBWTS), The Top Institute for Snow Bleaching (TTISB), The Most Famous University in the Most Famous Town (TMFUMFT), etc., will be welcome and accepted readily. The more endorsed an author by famous seniors, Nobel Laureates or ‘prestigious stones,’ the more his chances of acceptance will be great, regardless of the content of manuscripts, because all that interests us is to make as much media buzz as possible. Authors who do not fulfill these standards will be condescendingly rejected and should agree that we might pick up some of their
©2016 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode), which grants the public the nonexclusive right to copy, distribute, or display the published work.
Volume 17, Number 3
Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
331
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
rejected ideas if we find them of some interest to us. We also may intentionally delay or accelerate rejections on manuscripts with potentially interesting ideas to invite people we cherish, editorial members, or already authorial clients in our journal to write on topics we already rejected from authors who do not meet our criteria, herein. Authors benefit from an easy and quick one-for-all rejection template whatever the time and efforts they may have put into their manuscripts. Finally, our journal is an equal and highly ethical venue that assuredly does not distinguish between authors on the basis of ear shapes, potbelly, or shoe sizes. PAPA, MAMA or TATA box sequences do not influence the integrity of our journal and decisions. Sincerely, Khaled Moustafa Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers Paris, France [email protected]
REFERENCES 1. Cottey, A. 2016. Reducing ethical hazards in knowledge production. Sci. Eng. Ethics 22(2):367–389. 2. Fischer, B. A., F. Grinnell, and M. J. Zigmond. 2014. Introductory comments for the scientific ethics theme. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 15(2):82. 3. Goldina, A., and O. I. Weeks. 2014. Science café course: an innovative means of improving communication skills
332
of undergraduate biology majors. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 15(1):13–17. 4. Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2: e124. 5. Kalichman, M. 2014. A modest proposal to move RCR education out of the classroom and into research. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 15(2):93–95. 6. Moustafa, K. 2015. Blind manuscript submission to reduce rejection bias? Sci. Eng. Ethics 21(2):535–539. 7. Moustafa, K. 2015. Is there bias in editorial choice? Yes. Scientometrics 105(3):2249–2251. 8. Moustafa, K. 2015. A proposal for an ‘equal peer-review’ statement. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 36(8):494–495. 9. Moustafa, K. 2016. A proposal for print-online hybrid publishing system. Scientometrics 108:1649–1650. 10. Oosterhaven, J. 2015. Too many journals? Towards a theory of repeated rejections and ultimate acceptance. Scientometrics 103(1):261–265. 11. Smith, R. 2010. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res. 12(Suppl 4):S13. 12. Smith, R. 2006. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J. R. Soc. Med. 99(4):178–182. 13. Spier, R. E. 2002. Peer review and innovation. Sci. Eng. Ethics 8(1):99–108; discussion 109–112. 14. Spier, R. E., and G. A. Poland. 2013. What is excellent science and how does it relate to what we publish in Vaccine? Vaccine 31:5147–5148. 15. Woolley, K. L ., and J. P. Barron. 2009. Handling manuscript rejection: insights from evidence and experience. Chest 135(2):573–577. 16. Zigmond, M. J., and B. A. Fischer. 2014. Teaching responsible conduct responsibly. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 15(2):83–87.
Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
Volume 17, Number 3
Letters to the Editor
Publishing, Objectivity, and Prestige
To the Editor, Disseminating scientific knowledge and teaching responsible conduct to people involved in research and scientific activities is a prerequisite for the efficiency and integrity of scientific information (16). However, one important challenge scientists face today is conveying scientific information to the public clearly and directly (3). Another challenge is related to peer-review biases (11, 12) and high rejection rates based on subjective and unfounded arguments, particularly in some ‘snobbish’ journals. In fact, some journals reject up to 90% of manuscripts received, as they like to boast at every opportunity. Most of the rejections are made at the editorial desk without real peer reviews. Editors and reviewers in such journals seem to be instructed to reject as many papers as possible as an irrational strategy for prestige and elitism, which, in my view, is contrary to the essence of the scientific foundations that should focus on objectivity, fairness, and validity of the reported findings and thoughts rather than on superficial ‘prestige’ and evanescent buzz. Some editors and reviewers seem to associate ‘publishable’ papers to narrow and subjective criteria only. They consider that high rejection rates are a gage of high quality and that ‘true’ science is coming from star names or big labs only. Scientific knowledge, however, is much larger than this narrow-minded vision; it extends beyond the narrow confines of biology, chemistry, and physics to include theories, concepts, ideas, hypotheses, thoughts, understandings, etc. (14). Knowledge and scientific advancement also include the ability to analyze, to think critically, to think outside the box, to propose problem-oriented solutions, etc., which could be more useful and rewarding for the scientific community and society than studies reporting merely quantitative data and findings many of which are irreproducible or false in a number of cases (4). With such ‘rejective’ policy, bold, innovative challenges to either theoretical concepts or practical goals are frequently rejected as being contrary to dominant paradigms (13). It is, however, unlikely that the idiosyncrasies of the publication system would actually obstruct innovative ideas from dissemination; it is simply that their publication will be delayed (13), as most manuscripts are eventually published somewhere (10, 15). Although rejection hurts, it is not fatal (15). Indeed, there are many examples of papers rejected by the author’s first choice of journal that have then been published elsewhere and profoundly changed the way we interpret the world around us (13).
To reduce rejection biases, many potential solutions exist. Among them is to anonymize manuscript submission (6) so that the rejections made at the editorial desk are not influenced by subjective factors such as the author’s name, country, or gender, etc. Anonymized submission would allow submitting authors to undergo equal peer-review chances (8), which, in turn, would reduce editorial biases (7). Another approach is to empower research players and leaders to foster dialogue about ethics in research and in the work environment (5), as well as in the publishing industry, so that any bias related to superficial factors can be avoided or at least reduced. In the same way that providing firm instructions in research integrity should be an obligation, not an option (2), instructions for reducing ethical hazards in knowledge production (1) and in publishing integrity should also be issued and respected. A print-online hybrid publishing system in which print and online publication formats can co-exist could also be considered to reduce rejection biases in traditional print journals that argue ‘space limitations’ so that they can accept and publish more worthwhile articles in online formats only when the quotas for print versions are filled (9). In this context, here are tongue-in-cheek Instructions for Authors that would reflect some unspoken acceptance/ rejection policies in some snobbish—or even discriminatory—journals that seem to link manuscript acceptance to narrow and biased criteria: Only authors who fulfill our unspoken in-house benchmarks for prestige, celebrity, and elitism will be considered. The names of authors and/ or institutions should imply historical or actual grandiosity, splendor, and excellence. For example, authors from The Prestigious Spider Prostate Research Center (TPSPRC), The Elite School for Bat Wisdom Teeth Studies (TESBWTS), The Top Institute for Snow Bleaching (TTISB), The Most Famous University in the Most Famous Town (TMFUMFT), etc., will be welcome and accepted readily. The more endorsed an author by famous seniors, Nobel Laureates or ‘prestigious stones,’ the more his chances of acceptance will be great, regardless of the content of manuscripts, because all that interests us is to make as much media buzz as possible. Authors who do not fulfill these standards will be condescendingly rejected and should agree that we might pick up some of their
©2016 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode), which grants the public the nonexclusive right to copy, distribute, or display the published work.
Volume 17, Number 3
Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
331
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
rejected ideas if we find them of some interest to us. We also may intentionally delay or accelerate rejections on manuscripts with potentially interesting ideas to invite people we cherish, editorial members, or already authorial clients in our journal to write on topics we already rejected from authors who do not meet our criteria, herein. Authors benefit from an easy and quick one-for-all rejection template whatever the time and efforts they may have put into their manuscripts. Finally, our journal is an equal and highly ethical venue that assuredly does not distinguish between authors on the basis of ear shapes, potbelly, or shoe sizes. PAPA, MAMA or TATA box sequences do not influence the integrity of our journal and decisions. Sincerely, Khaled Moustafa Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers Paris, France [email protected]
REFERENCES 1. Cottey, A. 2016. Reducing ethical hazards in knowledge production. Sci. Eng. Ethics 22(2):367–389. 2. Fischer, B. A., F. Grinnell, and M. J. Zigmond. 2014. Introductory comments for the scientific ethics theme. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 15(2):82. 3. Goldina, A., and O. I. Weeks. 2014. Science café course: an innovative means of improving communication skills
332
of undergraduate biology majors. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 15(1):13–17. 4. Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2: e124. 5. Kalichman, M. 2014. A modest proposal to move RCR education out of the classroom and into research. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 15(2):93–95. 6. Moustafa, K. 2015. Blind manuscript submission to reduce rejection bias? Sci. Eng. Ethics 21(2):535–539. 7. Moustafa, K. 2015. Is there bias in editorial choice? Yes. Scientometrics 105(3):2249–2251. 8. Moustafa, K. 2015. A proposal for an ‘equal peer-review’ statement. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 36(8):494–495. 9. Moustafa, K. 2016. A proposal for print-online hybrid publishing system. Scientometrics 108:1649–1650. 10. Oosterhaven, J. 2015. Too many journals? Towards a theory of repeated rejections and ultimate acceptance. Scientometrics 103(1):261–265. 11. Smith, R. 2010. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res. 12(Suppl 4):S13. 12. Smith, R. 2006. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J. R. Soc. Med. 99(4):178–182. 13. Spier, R. E. 2002. Peer review and innovation. Sci. Eng. Ethics 8(1):99–108; discussion 109–112. 14. Spier, R. E., and G. A. Poland. 2013. What is excellent science and how does it relate to what we publish in Vaccine? Vaccine 31:5147–5148. 15. Woolley, K. L ., and J. P. Barron. 2009. Handling manuscript rejection: insights from evidence and experience. Chest 135(2):573–577. 16. Zigmond, M. J., and B. A. Fischer. 2014. Teaching responsible conduct responsibly. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 15(2):83–87.
Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
Volume 17, Number 3
