Publish and Perish!

Two years ago, I wrote an editorial for this journal entitled “Publish or Perish” (1) in which I explained my philosophy concerning the control of research journals, which, I maintained, are best owned by learned societies and similar national, regional or international organizations so that continuity, high standards, quality control, price control and democratic management of the journal can be assured. Very importantly, surplus income from the publication is plowed back to help the science progress by providing funds, often hard to obtain by other means, for symposia, travel fellowships, workshops, prizes, etc. I was contrasting that kind of arrangement with a journal entirely in the hands of a commercial publisher, where none of the monetary profits are plowed back into science. I have no problem with a profit-sharing partnership between a scientific organization and a commercial publisher, so long as the scientific organization holds the copyright of the journal and can, at any time, when the contract is up for renewal, walk away and choose another publisher. There are many excellent examples of this kind. Of course there are also excellent examples of purely private publications, but they are in the minority. When I submit a research grant application, I add a paragraph in front of my bibliography to explain how I choose the journals in which I publish. For many years I have only used “commercial” journals for a special reason, such a Festschrift. I explain this choice of journals in order to anticipate comments from referees, study section members, and the like who will otherwise question my choices. This policy has gotten me into trouble once again, but for a different reason. A year ago I submitted a multi-year competing renewal application. I awaited with the usual trepidation the preliminary notice announcing the priority score and the percentile ranking. When it arrived, I had reason to be apprehensive. It was the second best priority score I had received in the last 10 years, but we all know how things are these days. The program director confirmed my misgivings, telling me that “you were very close”, but a miss, of course, is as good as a mile. When the summary statement arrived, I looked for what it was that might have pushed us over the edge for funding and there it was, in the resume. I read in the detailed critique laudatory statements such as “unique,” “pioneering work,” “publications. ..numerous...clearly substantial results.” “very productive,” “major contributions.” “their productivity says that they can get the job done.” All this and a failing score? Sixteen publications and two submitted and now my choice of journals had become a stick with which members of the study section had decided to beat me. What was it that I read in the resume?: “The decision to publish a large percentage of the time in Journal X is not regarded as helpful. The applicant could publish in Journal A, Journal B, Journal C, and other critically reviewed journals and not violate his desire to avoid privately published journals.” So now it was not my policy of publishing in the journals of learned societies that had me in trouble. It was the alleged favoring of one of these journals. The fact of the matter was that my 16 + 2 publications were spread among 8 different journals. Journal X was the vehicle in which seven of these papers had been published. (Journal X is notThe FASEB Journal, and I have no editorial connection with it.) That I was already using Journal A and Journal B, in I which was being admonished to publish, only added fuel to the frustration that I felt. That Journal X has a higher Impact Factor than Journal A was also something that one would not have inferred by reading the critique. What was the criticism about and what was its relevance to the science of our proposal? I was baffled. What happened? With the helpof the program director I mounted an appeal and after many months, the appeal succeeded and we have been paid. All of us have stories to tell of what we consider to be unfair, inappropriate, unbalanced reviews of our grant proposals, no matter what the agency. As theFJ Editor-in-Chief I have considered fromtime to time whether we should not open our columns to complaints of this nature so long as they lead to positive recommendations. And so it is here, where I am relating this occurrence and at the same time offering some advice. I must say that