| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Editor's Notes |
Once upon a time, the primary function of journals was to offer researchers and academics in search of status and tenure a place to publish, and to provide graduate students with an outlet for their efforts. Although few people would admit it, at that time there was more concern about how authors would be viewed by their peers (by "peers," I mean their colleagues who also conducted and published research) and how readers would deal with new information. Those days have almost disappeared.
Now as then, dynamic tension exists among authors, editors, and readers. The arrogance of the old days has diminished, and few authors today would state publicly that it is the "reader's problem" when the reader cannot understand a paper or apply its findings. But there still is some resentment on the part of authors when editors demand that they write readable papers. Similarly, journals still hear from readers who believe that articles are too complicated to be understood easily. Some readers seem to want everything pre-digested and do not care what is lost in the process. The Journal does care, however.
The Journal Editors take no solace from the fact that two of their most important constituent groups may not be completely happy. The old line is that if you are getting criticism from both sides, you are probably doing something right; however, this casual remark often comes from those who fail to consider the very real possibility that a journal may be getting criticism from both sides because it is doing a lousy job!
This possibility cannot be ignored. The Editor, Editorial Board, and staff of Physical Therapy routinely discuss this issue and listen carefully to the discordant voices on the topic. For us it is an ongoing source of angst, and, because we do take these comments to heart, we try to maintain an acceptable middle ground. We may not be in the best position to judge the correctness or effectiveness of our actions, however.
In our 1998 readership survey, 82% of respondents stated that the Journal is understandable to them and 72% stated that they use the information in the Journal to guide patient management. Numbers like these keep journal editors feeling young and ready to take on the world—or, at least, to take on a few disgruntled authors! From my perspective, when authors provide us with exciting and well-done research, this should be a time for celebration, and it should be a particularly gratifying time for the authors. Unfortunately, too often the papers are written in an impenetrable style that cloaks the content with scientific jargon. I doubt that authors intend to do this. Authors are just products of a system that often considers readability last and that considers attempts to enhance readability as pandering to a low common denominator and therefore as detracting from scientific credibility.
Don't get me wrong. Readers also have a responsibility. Authors should not have to compromise credibility in order to make their papers understandable to the average reader. Scientific communications carry with them many burdens, and it is not always easy for an author to keep the prose straightforward and reader friendly, but that is no excuse for a failure to try. We believe that one reason why readers of Physical Therapy find our Journal easily understood is because we insist that authors engage with us in a process to enhance readability.
Our peer-review process is thorough, but it focuses primarily (though not exclusively) on issues dealing with credibility, relevance, and applicability. When a publishable article is in need of improvements, we ask authors to address the issues we have identified, and through an iterative process we help authors improve their papers. Part of the improvement deals with readability, but only so much can be accomplished with any single iteration.
We could send papers with communication problems back to authors for another revision stage before acceptance, but when we know papers are publishable and the authors have already addressed the major issues, our goal is to expedite these papers and get them published as soon as possible. Therefore, most papers go through only one set of revisions (only a few require two sets) before the Journal accepts them and begins the editing process. What happens when we edit? We make suggestions to authors, and we do ask for changes to be made.
In the end, the author must be comfortable with the changes, and we respect the author's right to reject our suggestions. The best solution usually is a middle ground achieved through dialogue, but sometimes this Editor, often due to suggestions from the reviewer team or in an effort to enhance credibility as well as readability, insists on changes. When that happens, authors can either withdraw the paper or, we fervently hope, find some way to deal with what the Journal believes are critical issues. In the end, authors are responsible for what appears under their byline.
Authors may be angered because they assume that when an article is accepted, we are making a guarantee that it will appear "as is"—but we are not! Our letters to authors make this clear. We accept articles that may still require work on the part of authors, not to delay the publication process but rather to expedite it. In today's world practitioners need accessible information, and as we attempt to move our practice toward being more evidence based, articles also have to be very reader friendly—but that should never be at the expense of credibility and should never lead to the omission of vital information.
Here we walk the line between interference with an author's message on one side and the Journal's credibility and our readers' right to have understandable information on the other. There is no magic formula. We make judgment calls and we are wrong on occasion—hence, the need for respectful dialogue.
I would like to think that we are not making many mistakes. Our readership survey suggests that we are having some positive effects, and so does anecdotal evidence. We often have non–physical therapists publish in our Journal, and some of them are defensive of their prose, as any author would be. On more than one occasion, however, many of these authors who did not look kindly on our edits have told us that their papers were remarkably well received. The authors deserve all the credit in the world for the content and substance, but I cannot help but believe that we gave them an assist by making their papers easier to follow and more direct. Respected scientists with massive publication records have told us that they appreciated our efforts when all is said and done. All of us—authors, editorial boards, and editors—can learn from the publication process.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
