Dr. Bucala is concerned that this preponderance of predatory journals seeking financial gain rather than contributing to scientific advancement can negatively affect the public’s perception of academia and, even more concerning, can negatively affect the scientific process involved in preparing a research study for publication.
“A quality product takes time on the part of authors, reviewers, editors and peer reviewers,” he says. “These are critical steps in the dissemination of a paper, because it is done in a blinded fashion and a relatively unbiased way to provide important feedback to the author so the manuscript can be refined and improved.”
The competition can be tough to get published in a preeminent journal, such as A&R, with a strong reputation and history, noting that less than 14% of papers that are submitted are accepted. Rejection can be for many different reasons, not only the merit of the work, but also if the research is too specialized and would be a better fit for a different publication, Dr. Bucala explains.
The bottom line is that “you can’t get a quality product by taking shortcuts,” such as those taken by predatory journals, which he labels a distraction.
“This distraction is our reality,” but we can choose to ignore unsolicited messages or the promise of getting published and protect our work from being wasted in these predatory publications, Dr. Bucala stresses. “Our focus should be on the content and the body of the work, and our measure of publishing success should be the advancement of scientific discourse that serves our patients and advances our field of study. This is not a simple task, but it is a fundamental one.”
Carina Stanton is a freelance science journalist based in Denver.
Reference
- Conner-Simons A. How three MIT students fooled the world of scientific journals. MIT News. 2015 Apr 14.
