The End of Journals

"For hundreds of years, medical journals have served as arbiters of the quality of medical research. But the traditional peer-reviewed publication model is fraying. The hierarchical gateway to publication, historically in the hands of experts, is at odds with the ubiquitous democratization of data and information in the 21st century. The impending revolution in the approach to evaluate and disseminate scientific findings is not an indictment of the talent, intentions, or products of editors and reviewers, but rather a response to a model that simply may have run its course given societal and technological change. The Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes team has had the privilege to found and lead this publication. My thoughts about the state of publication derive from my experiences as an editor, an investigator, an avid reader of the medical literature, and a seeker of ways to improve health care. My observations are as much or more about my own journal as they are about others ... The publication process is a long one. The time from the initial submission of an article to its publication can be half a year or more. There are exceptions, and some papers are expedited, but that is not the typical experience. Despite efforts to streamline the process, obstacles remain in the timeliness of publication ... From the perspective of authors, the expense of publishing is growing rapidly. Page charges, even from journals that produce profits, drain vital resources from the research enterprise. These funds often must derive from sources other than grants and can be an obstacle for many investigators. It is not uncommon for a publication to cost in the range of $3000 to $5000, particularly for open access ... The configuration of articles within most medical journals prohibits a comprehensive and in-depth approach to a scientific question. The format generally requires the investigators to chunk their work into contributions that fit within 3000 to 5000 words and no more than a handful of tables and images ... Peer review and the journal decision-making process occur without much external scrutiny and transparency. The way that journals select or eliminate contributions is rarely evaluated and routine metrics of success are absent ... Journals vie for prestige, which brings them attention, authors, and revenue. The impact factor has gained an edge among all potential measures as a means of ranking journals. Many journals are internally and externally judged by their relative position on the impact factor list, which is issued annually to increasing fanfare ... Journals tend to lack diversity in their editorial groups. This applies to sex and race/ethnicity, as well as national origin. Science knows no national boundaries yet journals seem to have national, and sometimes even regional, preferences with regard to their selection of submissions ... The journal publication is currently a static product, presented as a singular contribution rather than as a living document. It can be corrected or retracted, but it is not interactive and has no capacity for iterative change spurred by input from the larger audience ... Journals have been a good business. For organizations and corporations, they have been cash cows. The model from the author's perspective has been likened to a restaurant in which the customers cook the meal and then pay the bill. Despite the profits, page charges abound and reviewers are unpaid. The contributions in kind to journals are immense. The availability of editorial support that could improve the quality of the contributions is the exception rather than the norm ..."