plospcbiplcbPLoS Comput BiolploscompPLoS Computational Biology1553-734X1553-7358Public Library of ScienceSan Francisco, USA10.1371/journal.pcbi.003019007-PLCB-C-0474R2plcb-03-09-15CorrespondenceScience Policyeditorial peer reviewcensorshipevidence-based medicineraw datalogicReply to “Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published”N/AGroschEric
Eric Grosch (eric.grosch@gmail.com) Fort Myers, Florida, United States of America
The author has declared that no competing interests exist.
92007289200739e1902007Eric GroschThis is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.The author received no specific funding for this article.citationGrosch E (2007) Reply to “Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published”. PLoS Comput Biol 3(9): e190. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030190
Rule 10 for getting published [1] carries advice to publish in journals of high impact (high citation rate). Riding the coat-tails of eminent, high-impact journals is good marketing, but the task is easier said than done, because the higher the impact is the greater is the competition for print space and the more likely the editor is to offer unhelpful feedback, such as a statement on a form letter that he rejects many worthwhile manuscripts for lack of space. Good science may appear in the pages of journals of many degrees of impact. In support of that notion, current impact factors [2] appear in Table 1 for each of the journals (or successor—Am J Epidemiol continued J Chron Dis) cited in this essay (see References).
10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030190.t001
Impact Factors for Journals Referenced in This Essay
Yet, a journal's high eminence and high impact may bespeak its rigid orthodoxy, rather than its high quality. Rule 10 may hold for journals, such as PLoS Computational Biology, in which objective science, evidence, and the GIGO (“garbage in, garbage out”) principle count for something. Eminence-based medicine [3,4] too often substitutes—and poorly—for evidence-based medicine [5]. Altman deplored poor medical research [6], which too often appears in high-impact medical journals, and suggested, “incorrect procedures . . . can be hard to stop . . . from spreading . . . like a genetic mutation” [7]. Consensus in medicine [8] too often permits false doctrine to masquerade as “standard of care,” just as an ad blitz may build a public consensus on specious claims that favor sale of a certain brand of snow tire [9]. Medical science and its “opinion-leaders” were arguably tardy in complying with Rule 6, good science [1], in recognizing Helicobacter pylori in peptic ulcer disease [10,11], thrombolytic therapy for myocardial infarction [4,12], questioning post-menopausal estrogen [10,13], and preventing thousands of crib deaths by rejecting Benjamin Spock's high-impact advice to lay babies prone [14], among other instances [15].
In medical journals, eminence-based medicine [3,4] predominates, and censorship by editors, in attempts to save face, may impair the vitality [16] and self-correction [17,18] of science and the protection of “the literature and the reader from identifiable error” [19], despite editorial lip service to “evidence-based medicine” [5].
Helpful first steps to remedy the current malaise might consist of prompting editors of scientific journals, of all levels of impact, to improve peer review by encouraging substantive dialogue [20], by adhering to logic [21,22] and to valid statistical inference [23–25], by encouraging authors to provide readers access to raw data [7,26–31], the better that readers might verify or challenge published conclusions, by issuing to editorial peer reviewers a “plea for rigor” [32] and diligence [33] by requesting them to “state the rationale, and present the evidence, for exceptions taken to the manuscript” [32], and by incorporating the dialectical scientific brief [34], rather than by perpetuating current inequities: a) for each hour put in by a journal reviewer or editor, the author puts in about seven hours... [35]; b) the average time spent reviewing a paper is less than two hours in medicine [36]; c) the editor invariably defends the reviewer's call. After all, who are we to question the decision of someone who may have devoted much time to the manuscript [37]?
High-impact medical journals too often nurture sacred cows by taking in and putting out orthodox garbage and rejecting innovative pearls. Then the Institute of Medicine wonders why 44,000 to 98,000 patients per annum die of preventable medical errors in the hospitals of the United States [38].
ReferencesBournePE2005Ten simple rules for getting published.1e57doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057Available: http://gezhi.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/2005%20SCI.zip. Accessed 17 August 2007.IssacsDFitzgeraldD1999Seven alternatives to evidence based medicine.3191618ChalmersIHaynesB1994Reporting, updating and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care.309862865Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group1992Evidence-based medicine: A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine.26824202425AltmanDG1994The scandal of poor medical research.308283284AltmanDG2002Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do?28727652767SkrabanekP1990Nonsensus consensus.33514461447EddyDM1990Practice policies: Where do they come from?26312651269Additional page: 1272GenuisSJGenuisSK2006Exploring the continuum: Medical information to effective clinical practice. Paper I. Towards aetiology-centred clinical practice.124962Anon1983Unidentified curved bacilli on gastric epithelium in active chronic gastritis.112731275DavidoffF1999In the teeth of the evidence: The curious case of evidence-based medicine.667583RossouwJEAndersonGLPrenticeRLLaCroixAZKooperbergC2002Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: Principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial.288321333ChalmersI2001Invalid health information is potentially lethal.322998SkrabanekP1990Why is preventive medicine exempted from ethical constraints?16187190MetzM2002Criticism preserves the vitality of science.20867HarnadS1982Editor peer commentary on peer review.5185186GrouseLD1982Dealing with alleged fraud in medical research.24816371638ForscherBK1980The role of the referee.11165169CommonerB1978Peering at peer review.1325, 29ShandJ2000LondonRoutledgeIngleDJ1972Fallacies and errors in the wonderlands of biology, medicine and Lewis Carroll.15254281GlantzSA1997New YorkMcGraw-HillBailarJC1976Bailar's laws of data analysis.20113119WhiteSJ1979Statistical errors in papers in the British Journal of Psychiatry.135336342O'FallonJRDubeySDSalsburgDSEdmonsonJHSofferA1978Should there be statistical guidelines for medical research papers?34687695JamesNT1996Scientific method and raw data should be considered.313169170MainlandD1984Statistical ritual in clinical journals: Is there a cure?—I.288841843KleinDF2002Peer review and data access.38412MeguidMMShenkinA2003Introduction: Nutritional supplements and the quest to improve human performance—The need for the strictest standards and rigor when reporting clinical trials.19955956DeMariaAN2002Peer review: Better than the alternatives.4010171018DeBakeyL1990Journal peer reviewing. Anonymity or disclosure?108345349GroschEN2003Reviewer diligence?37187StampsAE1997Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review.38598KingDWMcDonaldDDRodererNK1981Stroudsburg (Pennsylvania)Hutchinson RossStehbensWE1999Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review.523136RaineCS2003A reviewer's lot is not a happy one.14112KohnLTCorriganJMDonaldsonMS1999Washington (D.C.)National Academy Press