| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
EDITORIAL |
Department of Psychiatry University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla, CA 92093-0804
At first glance, artists and journal authors may not seem to have much in common. After all, one uses a brush and paint, the other uses a pen and words. Although their tools of expression are different, artists and authors have similar hopes about their creative work: that it be held, examined, cherished, and saved. Consider the French artist Honoré Daumier (1808–1879). Daumier was well known during his lifetime for his poignant lithographs of the poor and his trenchant political cartoons and prints. Indeed, because of a number of particularly indiscreet cartoons about King Louis-Philippe, Daumier was sentenced to prison. He served 2 months in Sainte-Pelagrie prison before his publisher was able to negotiate the completion of his sentence in the "easier" environment of Pinel’s asylum (1). Daumier’s letters from prison and the insane asylum provide memorable reading.
Daumier’s paintings never received the same critical acclaim as his lithographs, but one of them, The Print Collectors, is a tour de force (see Figure). Four art buyers eagerly view a collection of prints. Daumier captures their passionate, almost erotic excitement as they try to decide which to buy. Obviously, Daumier hoped his own work would arouse the same passionate response. Unfortunately, the only "passion" kindled by his work was from the king, and, as described above, that response was not exactly positive. Real, tangible buyers were few, and as a result Daumier’s life was punctuated by constant fiscal embarrassment, by selling his furniture to stave off creditors, and by last minute moves to ever-smaller accommodations (2).
|
Surveying the field of journal publications, one is overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of journals available. How can one possibly keep up to date with so many journals? In 1950, the 20 most-cited journals accounted for 53% of the citations in the New England Journal of Medicine; by 1985 the 20 most cited journals accounted for 38% of the citations (3). In other words, readers need to follow a larger number of journals to keep abreast of the literature. Clearly a wider reading of the literature has become essential, but how do we gauge the intrinsic value of an article before we invest our time in it? The long agreed-on solution is to rely on peer review to prescreen manuscripts.
Although the proliferation of journals is healthy to the extent that it reflects a flourishing of science, it becomes an unhealthy symptom when articles that have no impact on the field are published. One admittedly imperfect way of gauging impact is to see whether articles are referred to in subsequently published articles. Currently, more than 50% of published articles are not cited at all within 5 years after their publication (4). One might infer that too much chaff is being published. After all, if studies have value, wouldn’t they be referenced?
The vast number of articles submitted to journals and awaiting publication results in publication delays. Typically, the lag time for a manuscript to be published in a bimonthly journal can be more than a year after the manuscript is formally accepted. As a result, the timeliness of such articles is open to question. Would creating more journals reduce publication lag time? I don’t think so. I am reminded of the congested traffic faced daily in southern California. There is constant pressure on local transportation boards to add another lane to the existing freeway system, yet these additional lanes never seem to solve the problem. More lanes bring more traffic. Similarly, adding more journals will not reduce the publication lag time. We will simply have more journals and less time to read them.
Some have suggested eliminating peer review to shorten the publication lag time. Because peer review can add 4 to 52 weeks of delay before an article officially is accepted for publication, why not let authors post their work on an open web site and let everyone respond with comments? In my opinion, this would force scholars to read many articles marred by poor writing and flawed design. In my 9 years as editor of Psychosomatic Medicine, no manuscript has ever been accepted and published exactly as submitted. Two thirds of the manuscripts received are rejected because they lack strength, novelty, or appropriateness for our journal. The remaining manuscripts are sculpted and resculpted by repeated peer reviews that consider everything from the clarity of the writing style to the soundness of the experimental design. As editor, I treasure peer review because it helps me identify the finest scholarship for our readers.
Since Daumier’s time, journals have become an expensive "big" business. The annual increase in subscription rates frequently exceeds the consumer price index and reflects higher costs of paper and postage as well as increased revenue for the journals’ owners. There are puzzling variances in price structure across scholarly areas. For instance, from 1997 to 2000, most history journals reported cost increases of 16%, whereas medical journal costs increased by 43% (5). These price increases have forced libraries to struggle with the question, "What is a reasonable amount to pay for a journal subscription?" Increasingly strapped for funds, libraries have cut back journal subscriptions.
One solution to the cost crisis in academic publishing is to rely on electronic publishing formats. Psychosomatic Medicine has been available on Ovid for the last 2 years and will be even more accessible electronically in the near future (look in upcoming issues for the formal announcement). Academic publishing involves a cost partnership between author, reader, and publisher. Electronic journal formats offer the possibility of lowering costs because they can lower both the production costs (paper and printing) as well as offer the possibility of distributing these costs across an increased circulation. We already have begun to see such results from our experience with Ovid.
Although electronic publication will increase a journal’s accessibility, there are two drawbacks. First, an electronic journal lacks tangibility. You can’t hold it in your hands and turn the pages. Second, its archival stability is questionable. Until electronically stored materials stand the test of time, journals are not likely to change over entirely to an electronic format. Instead, journals such as ours are likely to offer both an electronic and a print version. To a certain extent, this dual offering via print and electronic publishing calls to mind the flourishing of both movie theaters and videotape rentals. Both businesses appeal to slightly different markets, and the result has been very beneficial for the film industry.
There are nonetheless some intriguing "value" questions about electronic publishing. This new medium must address some of the same dilemmas confronted by the printing industry centuries ago. In an interesting book on the history of publishing, Johns (6) describes how the early printing industry struggled to define attributes of the printed book that we accept as "givens" today. These struggles included some of the same issues that we now struggle with in terms of electronic publishing: 1) What guarantee is there that a particular work was written by Professor X? 2) What guarantee do we have that the work held in our hands today will be the same as that accessed next year under the same title? 3) Who profits from this work? 4) What guarantee do we have that this work is valuable?
A final historical musing brings this discussion full circle. In Daumier’s time, the stamp tax made newspapers beyond the price range of the average citizen, and illiteracy was the norm. When Daumier published his political cartoons and lithographs in great quantity, he was pioneering a new technique: disseminating artwork to a large audience at low cost. Art could now be appreciated by broader segments of society (7). Interestingly the elimination of the stamp tax lowered the cost of newspaper production, and when the price of newspapers dropped, circulation rose. By the same token, I believe the advent of electronic publishing will mirror the advent of lithography: With online access, journal printing and production costs will decrease, journals will become more affordable, and circulation will increase. Glancing at Daumier’s painting again, I can’t help but imagine the look of delight on the faces of the four buyers if they could have foreseen the possibilities of this new medium.
APPENDIX
We thank the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, MA for permission to reprint the "The Print Collectors."
We would like to thank the following individuals for their help in reviewing manuscripts from October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2000. Their labors helped us feature outstanding scholarship in the preceding year.
APPENDIX
Reviewers for Psychosomatic Medicine
The Editor acknowledges with appreciation the efforts of the following colleagues who reviewed manuscripts for this Journal from October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2000.
