Producing a scientific journal in a small scientific community: an author-helpful policy

PERSPECTIVES INTERNATIONAL MICROBIOLOGY (2004) 7:143–147 www.im.microbios.org Matko Marusic Aleksandra Misak Marko Kljakovic-Gaspic Kristina Fister Darko Hren Ana Marusic* Producing a scientific journal in a small scientific community: an author-helpful policy Croatian Medical Journal, Zagreb University School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia *Corresponding author: Ana Marusic Croatian Medical Journal Zagreb University School of Medicine Salata 3, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia Tel./Fax +385-14590222 E-mail: Introduction Most scientific information is published in a small number of prestigious journals that address mainstream science [4]. At the same time, developing countries encompass almost a quarter of the world’s scientists but only less than 6% of research spending [4]. Journals from this “scientific periphery” [10] are poorly visible in the scientific community: the Science Citation Index (SCI), one of the most prestigious bibliographic databases, included less than 2% of journals in developing countries in 1995 [4]. We have previously described the vicious cycle of inadequacy for small journals from small scientific communities [4]: due to the small number and poor quality of manuscripts submitted, inadequate review process, and imperfect English, these journals cannot reach sufficient high visibility to attract better-quality reports and a broader readership, to become indexed, and thus to eventually escape from the shadow of anonymity [10]. We have also described our experience at the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) with breaking out of this vicious cycle [8,11,15,17]. During our work with Croatian authors during the war years from 1991 to 1995 [9,12,14], we developed an author-helpful editorial policya procedure with which most of the articles received were pre-reviewed intramurally and improved before being sent out for extramural review [11,14,17]. This scheme of work evolved natural- ly from our everyday practice, because our authors were mostly inexperienced scientists and writers, unaware of the importance of publishing and lacking the knowledge and technology for research planning. Thus, we had to embark on teaching not only scientific writing but also research planning, as well as data analysis and interpretation [13]. By taking on the role of educators, teaching both authors and undergraduate and postgraduate students how to write a scientific paper, we have helped them to produce and publish articles not only in the CMJ but also in many other international journals [8,14]. Such a policy has resulted in an enormous burden to the journal’s personnel, but also in a significant formal successthe inclusion of the CMJ in the most selective international indexing databases (MEDLINE in 1998, and Current Contents/Clinical Medicine and Web of Science in 1999), and even in an international award for design from the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers in 2002. The journal’s impact factor grew steadily from 0.2 in 1998, to 0.43 in 2000, to 0.71 in 2002, hopefully reflecting the increased interest of readers worldwide in articles published in the CMJ. If, despite the controversies surrounding the true meaning and importance of impact factor [3], we consider the inclusion of the CMJ into the prestigious bibliographic databases and the steady growth of its impact factor to be signs of success, then our editorial policy and work may hold a clue for breaking out of the confines of inadequacy. Therefore, the approach we have adopted at the CMJ deser- 144 INT. MICROBIOL. Vol. 7, 2004 MARUSIC ET AL. ves to be described in detail, as our experience may be helpful to those involved in producing science journals published in small scientific communities, or any small scientific journal. Each of the six editors in the editorial office communicates with the author, who is the focus of all editorial actions (Fig. 1). The editing process itself can be divided into four main stages. Cooperation with the author First stage. Pre-review and peer review Pre-review. One of the two Coeditors-in-Chief (M. Marusic) reads the manuscript and independently decides whether the manuscript will be rejected, sent to extramural reviewers and one of the four Statistical Editors [7], or returned to the author for improvements before peer-review (Fig. 1). Approximately a quarter of submitted manuscripts are rejected at this point, mainly because the data are too weak, incorrect, or insufficient, and the manuscript cannot be improved without additional research. Our policy is to always write a detailed rejection letter, explaining the weaknesses of the study and advising the authors on how to improve their future studies. Another quarter of received manuscripts are sent immediately for extramural review, whereas the remaining half is returned to the authors, with extensive instructions on how to improve the report to the level of quality needed for the extramural review. Fig. 1. Processing of manuscripts in the Editorial Office of the Croatian Medical Journal. Int. Microbiol. Our key problem is the shortage of quality articles, i.e., articles that: (i) describe properly designed and conducted studies, (ii) clearly present and adequately interpret the data, (iii) conform with the technical requirements of the journal’s format and style guidelines, and (iv) are written in good Englishthe latter being the least of the problems. During processing a manuscript to the point of publication, we deal with each of these aspects in a different way, depending on the stage of the editing process. Almost two-thirds of submitted manuscripts are rejected [6,16], either immediately by the Editor-in-Chief or after peer-review. The most common reasons for rejection are unoriginality and major flaws in methodology and presentation. A significant portion of manuscripts accepted for publication still requires greater or lesser amount of work from both editors and authors, whose close cooperation is of paramount importance in producing a well-written journal article. PRODUCING A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL After the manuscript has been corrected according to the Editor’s requirements and resubmitted for publication, the Editor reads it again and consults the other Coeditor-in-Chief (A. Marusic). They decide together whether to reject the work, return it to the author for further corrections, or send it out for extramural review (Fig. 1). If the manuscript is not rejected, the editor makes additional corrections and suggestions for further improvements. Sometimes, the manuscript is returned to the author for further improvements several times before it reaches the acceptable level of presentation quality. The author can even be asked to meet the editors in person, if possible, in order to receive an extensive explanation as to how to improve the report. When the pre-review stage is over, the author is asked to submit four paper copies of the manuscript, which are then sent out for official extr (...truncated)