Revealing the faults in medical journals

Abstract

Medical journals hold an exalted position in medicine, but have many shortcomings. This perspective reviews some of the shortcomings of medical journals which are primarily related to inexperience, bias, and commercialism. The issues discussed include the uncertain mission of the traditional medical journal in the modern digital age, the inherent inexperience of voluntary editorial boards, the weaknesses and capricious nature of decisions made by the peer-review process, the uneven value of most journal articles, the bias in what gets submitted and published in journals, the misunderstanding about the criteria for authorship, the misunderstanding of the need for ethical review board approval of studies, the misunderstanding of the need for informed consent for research from patients and ethical review boards, the various sources of assistance to editors and authors in dealing with the many ethical issues arising in the publication process, the commercialization and manipulation of medical journals by industry, the prevalent and complex financial entanglements of authors with industry, and the imperfect impact factor, which has the potential to be abused. The perspective concludes with theorization of the role of medical journals in the future. Readers need to scrutinize data in the literature carefully and interpret the discussions and conclusions critically, as there are biases in what is published in medical journals.

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews

“…Peer review is a highly subjective process; personal knowledge [ 28 ], private interests of reviewers such as professional affinities or rivalries [ 21 , 42 ], a preference towards interesting topics and favourable results [ 23 ], or towards the confirmation of their own thinking [ 28 , 49 ] can affect the review (i.e. biased reviewers ) .…”

“…Furthermore, we identified inconsistencies in the peer review process as one perceived barrier [ 21 , 42 ]. For instance, codes of practice among medical journal editors are voluntary and do not appear to be common [ 28 ].…”

“…Consistent criteria may be lacking for the selection of peer reviewers [ 23 , 40 ] and manuscripts [ 21 , 37 ]. Although training manuals such as from the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) or European Association of Science Editors (EASE) for editors and peer reviewers are available, they do not seem to enjoy widespread use [ 20 , 42 ].…”

“…The articles discuss several ways to overcome inconsistencies in the peer review process: enforcement of transparency through publication of abstracts along with an explanation for rejections [ 49 ]; e nforcement of objectivity through incorporation of opinions from a wide range of experts [ 49 ] or implementation of an agreed upon quantitative measurement in the peer review process, familiar to all manuscript authors [ 37 ]; the inclusion of a statement of conflict of interest for reviewers and editors to identify personal relationships, academic rivalries, or personal, political, or ideological persuasions were proposed [ 21 , 49 ]; usage of fulltime, experienced professional peer reviewers and editorial boards to facilitate proper implementation of the peer review process [ 42 ] and the introduction of training for peer reviewers and editors in scientific appraisal of the submitted manuscripts [ 21 , 42 , 49 ] as well as the raising of awareness that manuscripts with neutral or negative results are of interest and value to the scientific community and study quality, not just positive outcomes, should be the focus [ 20 , 23 , 32 ]. Other proposals focused on the parts of a manuscript which should be subject to peer review to prevent reviewers from being biased by the results of the study: only the introduction and methods sections, everything except the results [ 53 ] or the peer review of the protocol.…”

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews

“…Peer review is a highly subjective process; personal knowledge [ 28 ], private interests of reviewers such as professional affinities or rivalries [ 21 , 42 ], a preference towards interesting topics and favourable results [ 23 ], or towards the confirmation of their own thinking [ 28 , 49 ] can affect the review (i.e. biased reviewers ) .…”

“…Furthermore, we identified inconsistencies in the peer review process as one perceived barrier [ 21 , 42 ]. For instance, codes of practice among medical journal editors are voluntary and do not appear to be common [ 28 ].…”

“…Consistent criteria may be lacking for the selection of peer reviewers [ 23 , 40 ] and manuscripts [ 21 , 37 ]. Although training manuals such as from the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) or European Association of Science Editors (EASE) for editors and peer reviewers are available, they do not seem to enjoy widespread use [ 20 , 42 ].…”

“…The articles discuss several ways to overcome inconsistencies in the peer review process: enforcement of transparency through publication of abstracts along with an explanation for rejections [ 49 ]; e nforcement of objectivity through incorporation of opinions from a wide range of experts [ 49 ] or implementation of an agreed upon quantitative measurement in the peer review process, familiar to all manuscript authors [ 37 ]; the inclusion of a statement of conflict of interest for reviewers and editors to identify personal relationships, academic rivalries, or personal, political, or ideological persuasions were proposed [ 21 , 49 ]; usage of fulltime, experienced professional peer reviewers and editorial boards to facilitate proper implementation of the peer review process [ 42 ] and the introduction of training for peer reviewers and editors in scientific appraisal of the submitted manuscripts [ 21 , 42 , 49 ] as well as the raising of awareness that manuscripts with neutral or negative results are of interest and value to the scientific community and study quality, not just positive outcomes, should be the focus [ 20 , 23 , 32 ]. Other proposals focused on the parts of a manuscript which should be subject to peer review to prevent reviewers from being biased by the results of the study: only the introduction and methods sections, everything except the results [ 53 ] or the peer review of the protocol.…”

IF-mania: Journal Impact Factor nie jest właściwym wskaźnikiem oceniania wyników badań naukowych, indywidualnych uczonych ani ośrodków badawczych

“…Warto przypomnieć, że Thomson Scientific uwzględnia w obliczeniach tylko te pisma, które wcześniej sam, wg swoich subiektywnych kryteriów, umieścił na liście ISI [39]. Jest to zaledwie 5% czasopism naukowych, które ukazują się w druku bądź w wersji elektronicznej; zignorowanie pozostałych 95% jest niesłuszne, krzywdzące i prowadzi do zafałszowania rzeczywistego obrazu [48]. Pomijane są pisma mniej znane, w których również mogą być publikowane ważne wyniki badań, jak np.…”

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews

“…Peer review is a highly subjective process; personal knowledge [ 28 ], private interests of reviewers such as professional affinities or rivalries [ 21 , 42 ], a preference towards interesting topics and favourable results [ 23 ], or towards the confirmation of their own thinking [ 28 , 49 ] can affect the review (i.e. biased reviewers ) .…”

“…Furthermore, we identified inconsistencies in the peer review process as one perceived barrier [ 21 , 42 ]. For instance, codes of practice among medical journal editors are voluntary and do not appear to be common [ 28 ].…”

“…Consistent criteria may be lacking for the selection of peer reviewers [ 23 , 40 ] and manuscripts [ 21 , 37 ]. Although training manuals such as from the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) or European Association of Science Editors (EASE) for editors and peer reviewers are available, they do not seem to enjoy widespread use [ 20 , 42 ].…”

“…The articles discuss several ways to overcome inconsistencies in the peer review process: enforcement of transparency through publication of abstracts along with an explanation for rejections [ 49 ]; e nforcement of objectivity through incorporation of opinions from a wide range of experts [ 49 ] or implementation of an agreed upon quantitative measurement in the peer review process, familiar to all manuscript authors [ 37 ]; the inclusion of a statement of conflict of interest for reviewers and editors to identify personal relationships, academic rivalries, or personal, political, or ideological persuasions were proposed [ 21 , 49 ]; usage of fulltime, experienced professional peer reviewers and editorial boards to facilitate proper implementation of the peer review process [ 42 ] and the introduction of training for peer reviewers and editors in scientific appraisal of the submitted manuscripts [ 21 , 42 , 49 ] as well as the raising of awareness that manuscripts with neutral or negative results are of interest and value to the scientific community and study quality, not just positive outcomes, should be the focus [ 20 , 23 , 32 ]. Other proposals focused on the parts of a manuscript which should be subject to peer review to prevent reviewers from being biased by the results of the study: only the introduction and methods sections, everything except the results [ 53 ] or the peer review of the protocol.…”

IF-mania: Journal Impact Factor nie jest właściwym wskaźnikiem oceniania wyników badań naukowych, indywidualnych uczonych ani ośrodków badawczych

“…Warto przypomnieć, że Thomson Scientific uwzględnia w obliczeniach tylko te pisma, które wcześniej sam, wg swoich subiektywnych kryteriów, umieścił na liście ISI [39]. Jest to zaledwie 5% czasopism naukowych, które ukazują się w druku bądź w wersji elektronicznej; zignorowanie pozostałych 95% jest niesłuszne, krzywdzące i prowadzi do zafałszowania rzeczywistego obrazu [48]. Pomijane są pisma mniej znane, w których również mogą być publikowane ważne wyniki badań, jak np.…”

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews

“…Peer review is a highly subjective process; personal knowledge [ 28 ], private interests of reviewers such as professional affinities or rivalries [ 21 , 42 ], a preference towards interesting topics and favourable results [ 23 ], or towards the confirmation of their own thinking [ 28 , 49 ] can affect the review (i.e. biased reviewers ) .…”

“…Furthermore, we identified inconsistencies in the peer review process as one perceived barrier [ 21 , 42 ]. For instance, codes of practice among medical journal editors are voluntary and do not appear to be common [ 28 ].…”

“…Consistent criteria may be lacking for the selection of peer reviewers [ 23 , 40 ] and manuscripts [ 21 , 37 ]. Although training manuals such as from the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) or European Association of Science Editors (EASE) for editors and peer reviewers are available, they do not seem to enjoy widespread use [ 20 , 42 ].…”

“…The articles discuss several ways to overcome inconsistencies in the peer review process: enforcement of transparency through publication of abstracts along with an explanation for rejections [ 49 ]; e nforcement of objectivity through incorporation of opinions from a wide range of experts [ 49 ] or implementation of an agreed upon quantitative measurement in the peer review process, familiar to all manuscript authors [ 37 ]; the inclusion of a statement of conflict of interest for reviewers and editors to identify personal relationships, academic rivalries, or personal, political, or ideological persuasions were proposed [ 21 , 49 ]; usage of fulltime, experienced professional peer reviewers and editorial boards to facilitate proper implementation of the peer review process [ 42 ] and the introduction of training for peer reviewers and editors in scientific appraisal of the submitted manuscripts [ 21 , 42 , 49 ] as well as the raising of awareness that manuscripts with neutral or negative results are of interest and value to the scientific community and study quality, not just positive outcomes, should be the focus [ 20 , 23 , 32 ]. Other proposals focused on the parts of a manuscript which should be subject to peer review to prevent reviewers from being biased by the results of the study: only the introduction and methods sections, everything except the results [ 53 ] or the peer review of the protocol.…”

IF-mania: Journal Impact Factor nie jest właściwym wskaźnikiem oceniania wyników badań naukowych, indywidualnych uczonych ani ośrodków badawczych

“…Warto przypomnieć, że Thomson Scientific uwzględnia w obliczeniach tylko te pisma, które wcześniej sam, wg swoich subiektywnych kryteriów, umieścił na liście ISI [39]. Jest to zaledwie 5% czasopism naukowych, które ukazują się w druku bądź w wersji elektronicznej; zignorowanie pozostałych 95% jest niesłuszne, krzywdzące i prowadzi do zafałszowania rzeczywistego obrazu [48]. Pomijane są pisma mniej znane, w których również mogą być publikowane ważne wyniki badań, jak np.…”