subject: The Dilemma of Journal Publication [print this page] The Dilemma of Journal Publication The Dilemma of Journal Publication
Introduction
It is common knowledge that when writing a research article for a journal, certain standard have to be followed and applied throughout the article structure and it's contents. In some cases, these kinds of rules may render the article understandable only by those who are researching in the same field, and certainly not by the general public. The boundary' which can clearly separate important academic research from the rest of the population is nothing but a self-imposed limitation, where society as a whole has been artificially divided by those who demand these kinds of rules, i.e. where only the highly qualified and knowledgeable may have access of understanding to them.
Authors, editors and publishers should publish the results of any research in a style where it can be accessible to the man in the street, i.e. easy to read and simple to understand, regardless of the background and the level of education of their readers. In addition, these research articles should be always free to obtain, as well as the ability to access them immediately after publication.
In general, academic research publications have not diverted their effort, yet, toward those vast reservoirs of untapped readers, even though we see it happening these days on the Internet. However, the majority of those websites who publish articles immediately, or within few days, are doing it mainly for one purpose, i.e. to generate money from advertising, usually via a search engine', rather than for the main aim of encouraging and supporting intellectual activities among the general public.
Editors
Editors who reject many articles, even if these articles contain excellent research, correct' results, different scientific approaches and new ideas, in many cases do so simply because they were not written to their own journal standard, which they usually adhere to in all of their publications. This kind of approach can waste valuable opportunities for the publishers themselves, as well as for the authors and the public, as a whole. The question is what should the editors do? In many cases, editors do ask authors to rewrite or edit the rejected articles, and, possibly, request to re-submit them later on in accordance to the standard and format they require. This kind of approach will consume time and delay the publication of the newly obtained data.
By the time the work is ready for publication, in the eye of the editors, then, in some cases the data themself will be out of date and, consequently, the whole effort and time spent on the original research will be wasted.
Authors
Concerning authors, the dilemma can be felt on at least three fronts. The first one is the time aspect, i.e. the majority of the academic journals would take them on average six months before the author's article appear as a hard copy and/or published online. This kind of lengthy period is unacceptable, especially for new authors who would like to establish themselves within their own research field before someone else approaches that particular area (or idea) with similar conclusion and/or result(s).
The second one is related to the size of the article, i.e. the limitation imposed by the publishers on the number of words (minimum and maximum), which is understandable; but do not always serve a useful purpose. The rule should be in the form of how to put forward the research outline and the result(s), mainly for the purpose of making it clearer to the reader, rather than for lack or availability of space, i.e. regardless of the number of words being used, as long as it make sense to the potential reader.
The third front is the need for reviewers, i.e. peer review', which many publishers insist upon before considering the work for possible publication. Reviewers are important aids for the publishers and for the authors, but only when there is neutrality in their approach to the subject matter and where they have a wider knowledge needed to critically analyse and review the manuscript. Genuine constructive feedback from the reviewers is a vital tool which can help the publishers, as well as authors, on how to deal with the next step of the proposed publication.
In some cases, authors can be in dilemma of what is best for their work, i.e. if the comments made by the reviewers were either biased and/or wholly or partially incorrect. In some cases, the demands made upon the authors may eventually prevent an important work to reach the general public, simply because one of the parties concerned, e.g. reviewers comment, editor's views, and publisher's hesitation or demands, may prevent the publication of an important manuscript, directly or indirectly. The loss from such prevention to the general public can be immense, in particular to those who may have been searching for similar data and/or needed to develop further this kind a work in a related field.
Reviewers
The reviewers main tasks should be concentrated on the following points:
Comments on areas related to the strengths and weaknesses of the work
Comment on the quality of the author's data and his/her interpretation of it
Comment on strengths and weaknesses of the of the main message of the manuscript, regardless of the main contents of the work
Comment on ethical concerns
Comments related to the standards of the academicals research
The author should be provided with constructive comments for the purpose of improving the overall standard of the manuscript.
The comments should be always directed toward the work itself rather than associated toward a personal opinion which the author may have towards certain topic or field.
A reviewer's job is to provide the editor/publisher on the decision of whether to accept or revise the manuscript.
Final recommendations should be based on the importance of the data/results obtained rather on other aspects related to the presentation of the work itself
Approach
Obviously, in the eyes of the editors and publishers, the rules have to be followed and applied. This of course should not be their excuse to reject vast number of manuscripts arriving to their desk, simply because just as it happened, that they have been overwhelmed by them on a particular time and date. Again, the decision should be made on the account of the type of work which has been carried out and/or the result(s) obtained, regardless of how the work has been presented to them or the language used.
Having considered the above, the majority of publishers in their initial main basic approaches for journal publication will check the following points:
Examining common and basic mistakes such as spelling and grammatical errors
Fonts types used, spaces and margins
Minimum and maximum number of words used in the article/manuscript (point 1 3 are related to general instructions to authors)
Ethical Guidelines
Editorial approval of the article contents
External reviewer(s) comments
Possible date for publication, if the work accepted initially
Language and Copyright
The majority of journals would only publish in the English language. That means presentation in other languages, or even translated work, would have fewer prospects of being published within the vast majority of international research journals.
The other aspect, which may concern authors, is that by submitting work for publication the author copyright would be transferred, in most cases, to the journal concerned. This may mean that an author may not be able to publish his/her work elsewhere or later on, unless of course permission has been stipulated in this respect within the original agreement/contract by the publishers themselves.
The automatic transfer of the copyright to the journals is a common occurrence, and that in itself could limit the availability of the author materials to larger section of readers, across the globe.
Publication Date
Some of the research papers can be published within a shorter period of time than the normal expected time mentioned previously, i.e. possibly shorter than six months. This can be related to the data itself and/or the importance of discovery/design which has been accomplished. This is especially so if it is believed to be highly significant, then short cuts have to be made by the publishers to speed up the process. However, this is a rare occurrence, unless of course the author name has become a celebrity within the researcher's community, academics, publishers and the general public, as a whole. This kind of publicity could consequently generate higher profit and further work, as well as publicity to whoever publishes their work even if the work itself has very little value or below the normal standard the publishers adhered to.
Conclusion
The simple solution in dealing with some of the issues mentioned above is to consider always the overall benefit to the general public. It is suggested, therefore, that a possible solution could be achieved by following the summarised approach below.
All kind of research, from no matter what source or how supposedly difficult/complex the subject might be, should be written and presented in the form where everyone will be able to understand the concepts, methodology and results.
Publishers, editors, reviewers all have duty to create the bridge needed where their work, critics, comments and their publishing media, should be always directed effortlessly in line with point 1 above.
The present available media, to the majority of the general public and particularly in the form of access to the Internet, should make the availability of new research publication (and their results) within few days rather than within months.
Despite the English language being the main language for the majority of global research and publications, that in itself should not be the reason to reduce the demand (or limit the access) to those who have no knowledge or little command of the above language, i.e. other languages should be encouraged and supported. In contrast, it is for the benefits of the publishers that the authors work should be produced in other languages as well, exactly at the same time as being published in the English language. In certain situations, this could be uneconomical approach for the publishers, however, the publicity which they will gain and the feedback they may obtain from such multiple languages enterprise, surely would compensate for any tangible losses which may occur.
The overall control of one party of the copyright, i.e. who own the copyright?' can, in many cases, be a barrier to the general public in accessing the new work, as well as preventing any possible benefit which the work may provide to the rest of the society.
