- Email: [email protected]
For Every Manuscript, a Journal?
EDITORIAL J Oral Maxillofac Surg 75:1795-1796, 2017
For Every Manuscript, a Journal? On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. —Peter Steiner, The New Yorker, 1993 If you’re like me, the downside of the digital age is beginning to overtake its benefits. The innocent perusal of a website from a company you first notice in The Wall Street Journal turns into months of popup advertising. There is no privacy. Even if you cover the camera in your computer (as my wife does, defiantly), your online persona is still being watched, parsed, analyzed, and commercialized. My personal nemesis is email. True, it is a valuable tool that has streamlined my life and improved productivity considerably during the past 20 years. Nonetheless, I wage war each day with my inbox. Some messages get the ‘‘1-minute manager’’ approach. Others that require more thought or investigation move to various actions folders. I do not allow myself to leave my office until the inbox is empty. The enemy is spam, and not the usual silliness from Nigerian princes or English lords asking for my help to recapture their wealth by providing all the keys to my personal financial kingdom. It is a more pernicious form of spam—the unsolicited requests to submit manuscripts or chapters to some heretofore unknown ‘‘International Journal of Oral Diseases and Other Triviatum.’’ Despite how many times I label these messages as junk or spam, they just keep coming. Last week, I received dozens of solicitations from various so-called journals. While trying to unsubscribe from one particular solicitor, my browser warned me that its website might be unsafe. It isn’t hard to imagine how all of us get on these journal email lists. Any published article puts the authors’ names, institutions, and academic interests out there for the taking. My wife and I once hired an Englishspeaking guide to help us navigate Istanbul during a brief visit. The guide arrived uncomfortably knowledgeable about our professional lives. It’s no surprise, then, that a soliciting journal would cite an article that I have authored, praise the quality of the article, and suggest that I submit to their new journal. The requests are shameless and ingratiating. ‘ Dear eminent Doctor dodson (sic): Greetings! Congratulations for being the best! We have gone through your previous article entitled [article name] and we have chosen you as the right person to start the inaugural issue of our journal.’ Because I am a bit of a Maslow hammer, I might be guilty of viewing these journals as rusty nails. They
set off all sorts of warnings to my editor’s sensibilities, raising larger questions of publishing fraud or scientific impropriety. Most, if not all, of these solicitations come from what’s known as open access journals—a special journalistic forum characterized by its business model of ‘‘pay to publish.’’ Open access journals are the latest craze in online academic content—platforms that cater to investigators who willingly pay large fees to see their papers published. Many of these outlets lack rigor in editorial review and vetting of editorial board members. A recent expose reported that a senior health policy expert from Curtin University, Professor Mike Daube, successfully placed his own dog on the editorial boards of no fewer than 7 international medical journals with subject areas ranging from drug abuse to respiratory medicine. In one case, the dog was promoted to associate editor. The irony that this is the position I hold at the JOMS was not lost on me.1,2 The pay-to-publish model is not new. In fact, the JOMS provides an option for all authors whose articles have passed editorial review successfully to elect open access to their articles.3 But for each legitimate journal, there is a small proportion of others that exploit open access by accepting fees without providing the editorial scrutiny that legitimizes scientific research. Known as ‘‘predatory open access publishing,’’ this publishing con has given birth to ‘‘Beal’s List,’’ a reference list of known predatory journals and publishers.4 Needless to say, steering clear of predatory publishers is an imperfect science. In response to Beall’s List, the Directory of Open Access Journals developed a set of inclusion criteria to create a ‘‘whitelist’’ of reputable open access journals.5 Given this controversy, why would a reputable scientist elect open access publishing? Consider the many benefits that accrue when open access meets the internet. It provides ready online access to articles without subscription cost. It decreases the risk of copyright violation. It accelerates publication cycles. It can increase the reach of a publication across an audience much larger than a journal’s subscribers. Articles are more likely to be cited, an important criterion used in academic promotion. In fact, my own university is considering a policy to make all manuscripts published by its investigators open access. A recent University of Washington resolution claims open access ‘‘is associated with increases in the impact, visibility and use of the research.’’6 Indeed,
1795
1796 open access, when done reputably, is more about social equality than fraud and deceit. Understanding conflict of interest in publication is an important part of being a consumer of the academic literature today. Although pay to publish appears on the surface to implicate the author, journals that offer open access as a choice to authors only after the same editorial vetting as other peer-reviewed publications are upholding the standards of scientific review. That there is a fee at all is an unfortunate yet necessary part of the process that must be borne somewhere. In the case of the JOMS, the cost of publication is a benefit to members underwritten by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. This fact has, on occasion, drawn inference that articles written in support of oral and maxillofacial surgery practices—such as removal of wisdom teeth—might be self-serving. Economics are part of the beast. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist in this day and age to appreciate that all internet content isn’t created equal. It is important that we understand the evolving rules of the road distinguishing scientific publications from predatory journals. Look for journals that are sponsored by specialty organizations, that offer open access as an author’s option in publication, and that are included in academic indices such as PubMed. Predatory publications often charge a fee after accepting the manuscript. They commonly campaign aggressively for manuscripts and editorial board members and mimic the names of more established journals. Look for clues, such as whether the editor and publisher have the same name, whether there is no single person identified as the editor, or whether the publisher asks the author for suggested reviewers. Predatory journals frequently lock their PDFs to make it more difficult to check for plagiarism.7 Open access publishing will be more prevalent in years to come. Science should be revealed in a timely
EDITORIAL
fashion and belong to everyone equally, even while we wrestle over certifying scientific rigor and how to bear the cost of organized, reputable review. In the meantime, I choose my published print journals and revel in the moments away from my computer when I can browse the latest discoveries in my favorite chair. Caveat emptor. THOMAS B. DODSON, DMD, MPH ASSOCIATE EDITOR
References 1. O’Leary C: The Perth dog that’s probably smarter than you. Perth Now Sunday Times; 2017. Available at: http://www. perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/the-perth-dog-thatsprobably-smarter-than-you/news-story/a4de0d201ce420e0302 c69532a399419?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRZelpEWTNNbVkwWkd FMiIsInQiOiIzem9NWFp1WVM1UG10MGhBWGhpUEJJd2hnM kk5ODdcL3FScEU5WmlqVWpkXC81UmxHcmo1Qkw5TlFSUk U1KzlYNHVMcnUySkJlUGxLMFlnd0NpZDJ3NzlzNlhURlJTWTl FSmV5cG5qeFcrZHJxR3h3Mnk1cVBCNlVqU1dvb0p1TXE3In0 %3D. Accessed June 18, 2017. 2. Wilcken H: Dog of a dilemma: The rise of the predatory journal. Med J Aust Insight; 2017. Available at: https://www.doctor portal.com.au/mjainsight/2017/19/dog-of-a-dilemma-the-rise-ofthe-predatory-journal/. Accessed June 18, 2017. 3. Elsevier. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journalof-oral-and-maxillofacial-surgery/0278-2391/open-access-options. Accessed June 18, 2017. 4. Beall’s list of predatory journals and publishers. Available at: http://beallslist.weebly.com. Accessed June 18, 2017. 5. Directory of Open Access Journals: Information for publishers. Available at: https://doaj.org/publishers. Accessed June 20, 2017. 6. Resolution concerning the UW open access repository & request for advice on an open access policy. 2015. Available at: http:// www.washington.edu/faculty/files/2014/05/543.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2017 7. Beall J: Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Available at: http://beallslist.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/9/ 5/30958339/criteria-2015.pdf. Accessed June 18, 2017.
Ó 2017 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2017.06.040
For Every Manuscript, a Journal? On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. —Peter Steiner, The New Yorker, 1993 If you’re like me, the downside of the digital age is beginning to overtake its benefits. The innocent perusal of a website from a company you first notice in The Wall Street Journal turns into months of popup advertising. There is no privacy. Even if you cover the camera in your computer (as my wife does, defiantly), your online persona is still being watched, parsed, analyzed, and commercialized. My personal nemesis is email. True, it is a valuable tool that has streamlined my life and improved productivity considerably during the past 20 years. Nonetheless, I wage war each day with my inbox. Some messages get the ‘‘1-minute manager’’ approach. Others that require more thought or investigation move to various actions folders. I do not allow myself to leave my office until the inbox is empty. The enemy is spam, and not the usual silliness from Nigerian princes or English lords asking for my help to recapture their wealth by providing all the keys to my personal financial kingdom. It is a more pernicious form of spam—the unsolicited requests to submit manuscripts or chapters to some heretofore unknown ‘‘International Journal of Oral Diseases and Other Triviatum.’’ Despite how many times I label these messages as junk or spam, they just keep coming. Last week, I received dozens of solicitations from various so-called journals. While trying to unsubscribe from one particular solicitor, my browser warned me that its website might be unsafe. It isn’t hard to imagine how all of us get on these journal email lists. Any published article puts the authors’ names, institutions, and academic interests out there for the taking. My wife and I once hired an Englishspeaking guide to help us navigate Istanbul during a brief visit. The guide arrived uncomfortably knowledgeable about our professional lives. It’s no surprise, then, that a soliciting journal would cite an article that I have authored, praise the quality of the article, and suggest that I submit to their new journal. The requests are shameless and ingratiating. ‘ Dear eminent Doctor dodson (sic): Greetings! Congratulations for being the best! We have gone through your previous article entitled [article name] and we have chosen you as the right person to start the inaugural issue of our journal.’ Because I am a bit of a Maslow hammer, I might be guilty of viewing these journals as rusty nails. They
set off all sorts of warnings to my editor’s sensibilities, raising larger questions of publishing fraud or scientific impropriety. Most, if not all, of these solicitations come from what’s known as open access journals—a special journalistic forum characterized by its business model of ‘‘pay to publish.’’ Open access journals are the latest craze in online academic content—platforms that cater to investigators who willingly pay large fees to see their papers published. Many of these outlets lack rigor in editorial review and vetting of editorial board members. A recent expose reported that a senior health policy expert from Curtin University, Professor Mike Daube, successfully placed his own dog on the editorial boards of no fewer than 7 international medical journals with subject areas ranging from drug abuse to respiratory medicine. In one case, the dog was promoted to associate editor. The irony that this is the position I hold at the JOMS was not lost on me.1,2 The pay-to-publish model is not new. In fact, the JOMS provides an option for all authors whose articles have passed editorial review successfully to elect open access to their articles.3 But for each legitimate journal, there is a small proportion of others that exploit open access by accepting fees without providing the editorial scrutiny that legitimizes scientific research. Known as ‘‘predatory open access publishing,’’ this publishing con has given birth to ‘‘Beal’s List,’’ a reference list of known predatory journals and publishers.4 Needless to say, steering clear of predatory publishers is an imperfect science. In response to Beall’s List, the Directory of Open Access Journals developed a set of inclusion criteria to create a ‘‘whitelist’’ of reputable open access journals.5 Given this controversy, why would a reputable scientist elect open access publishing? Consider the many benefits that accrue when open access meets the internet. It provides ready online access to articles without subscription cost. It decreases the risk of copyright violation. It accelerates publication cycles. It can increase the reach of a publication across an audience much larger than a journal’s subscribers. Articles are more likely to be cited, an important criterion used in academic promotion. In fact, my own university is considering a policy to make all manuscripts published by its investigators open access. A recent University of Washington resolution claims open access ‘‘is associated with increases in the impact, visibility and use of the research.’’6 Indeed,
1795
1796 open access, when done reputably, is more about social equality than fraud and deceit. Understanding conflict of interest in publication is an important part of being a consumer of the academic literature today. Although pay to publish appears on the surface to implicate the author, journals that offer open access as a choice to authors only after the same editorial vetting as other peer-reviewed publications are upholding the standards of scientific review. That there is a fee at all is an unfortunate yet necessary part of the process that must be borne somewhere. In the case of the JOMS, the cost of publication is a benefit to members underwritten by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. This fact has, on occasion, drawn inference that articles written in support of oral and maxillofacial surgery practices—such as removal of wisdom teeth—might be self-serving. Economics are part of the beast. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist in this day and age to appreciate that all internet content isn’t created equal. It is important that we understand the evolving rules of the road distinguishing scientific publications from predatory journals. Look for journals that are sponsored by specialty organizations, that offer open access as an author’s option in publication, and that are included in academic indices such as PubMed. Predatory publications often charge a fee after accepting the manuscript. They commonly campaign aggressively for manuscripts and editorial board members and mimic the names of more established journals. Look for clues, such as whether the editor and publisher have the same name, whether there is no single person identified as the editor, or whether the publisher asks the author for suggested reviewers. Predatory journals frequently lock their PDFs to make it more difficult to check for plagiarism.7 Open access publishing will be more prevalent in years to come. Science should be revealed in a timely
EDITORIAL
fashion and belong to everyone equally, even while we wrestle over certifying scientific rigor and how to bear the cost of organized, reputable review. In the meantime, I choose my published print journals and revel in the moments away from my computer when I can browse the latest discoveries in my favorite chair. Caveat emptor. THOMAS B. DODSON, DMD, MPH ASSOCIATE EDITOR
References 1. O’Leary C: The Perth dog that’s probably smarter than you. Perth Now Sunday Times; 2017. Available at: http://www. perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/the-perth-dog-thatsprobably-smarter-than-you/news-story/a4de0d201ce420e0302 c69532a399419?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRZelpEWTNNbVkwWkd FMiIsInQiOiIzem9NWFp1WVM1UG10MGhBWGhpUEJJd2hnM kk5ODdcL3FScEU5WmlqVWpkXC81UmxHcmo1Qkw5TlFSUk U1KzlYNHVMcnUySkJlUGxLMFlnd0NpZDJ3NzlzNlhURlJTWTl FSmV5cG5qeFcrZHJxR3h3Mnk1cVBCNlVqU1dvb0p1TXE3In0 %3D. Accessed June 18, 2017. 2. Wilcken H: Dog of a dilemma: The rise of the predatory journal. Med J Aust Insight; 2017. Available at: https://www.doctor portal.com.au/mjainsight/2017/19/dog-of-a-dilemma-the-rise-ofthe-predatory-journal/. Accessed June 18, 2017. 3. Elsevier. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journalof-oral-and-maxillofacial-surgery/0278-2391/open-access-options. Accessed June 18, 2017. 4. Beall’s list of predatory journals and publishers. Available at: http://beallslist.weebly.com. Accessed June 18, 2017. 5. Directory of Open Access Journals: Information for publishers. Available at: https://doaj.org/publishers. Accessed June 20, 2017. 6. Resolution concerning the UW open access repository & request for advice on an open access policy. 2015. Available at: http:// www.washington.edu/faculty/files/2014/05/543.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2017 7. Beall J: Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Available at: http://beallslist.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/9/ 5/30958339/criteria-2015.pdf. Accessed June 18, 2017.
Ó 2017 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2017.06.040