It's been said that the BMJ* is a big rejection machine(1). Out of approximately 8,000 manuscripts received each year only 7% are accepted. Comments and suggestions provided by editors and/or reviewers represent a wealth of knowledge only available for the original authors. Is there a way we can unlock value trapped in the remarks provided by BMJ editorship?
The short answer is yes. In a study published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine journal(2), it was estimated that more than 50% of rejected papers were published somewhere else, the majority of which were issued in the first two years after rejection. Even though only 10% of those rejected were published in journals with a higher impact factor(3), one can say that not all unaccepted papers go to a lower-ranking journal. The figure of 50% appears to be common among other major journals, like Cardiovascular Research(4). I think the situation with BMJ is similar to these major papers. How could authors then succeed in publishing more than half of their rejected papers? Well, in some cases the credit goes to what can labelled as constructive criticism: comments and suggestions from the editorship of the rejecting journal. Authors in these cases incorporate changes recommended by editors and/or reviewers and sometimes even do a total rewrite. This means there is a knowledge asset that will be useful if shared with other authors.
A proposal
To answer the question of how to unlock this valuable resource, I suggest we build a database for a selection from these unaccepted papers. Below is a summary of this proposal:
a. Initially submitted manuscripts are tagged with comment markers (in technical jargon: metadata tags). While BMJ editors/reviewers are scrutinising these manuscripts, they can enter their suggestions and remarks as “Comments” to be captured by the information-holding place (ie metadata tags)
b. If this particular paper is rejected (there is a 93% chance that is the case with initially submitted manuscripts to the BMJ(5)), then all personal references are removed to de-identify the original and make it anonymous (information like author names and other bits of content chosen by the authors (to avoid copyright infringements and to protect intellectual property of the authors).
c. A database is to be created to host all of the binned material (which is now anonymous). The database system will do the job of indexing and grouping all of these materials in meaningful groups.
d. This database will then be made available for those who are about to write or submit a paper. Access will be logged and managed by the database system making sure that security measures are in place.
e. With time, there will be a build up of knowledge from the bits and pieces of information which will be contributed by editors and/or reviewers. It can be thought of as a “wisdom database” as it will be a place where accumulated scientific or otherwise learning is kept.
Avoiding pitfalls and obstacles
Authors can learn from other people’s mistakes by examining failed attempts and analysing the reasons of rejection to understand better BMJ editors’ logic. Knowing some of the frequent errors can help steer your writing journey away from editors’ recycle bin. Sometimes it’s common sense that separates an accepted paper from a failed one. According to Jeff Skousen, a West Virginia University professor(6), “Scientists who publish know some of the pitfalls and obstacles that hinder the publishing process, especially in the top-tier journals.” With “wisdom database” in place we can alleviate the pain that many of us have to endure when trying to pass through BMJ gatekeepers (also known as editors).Intellectual property
Publication in scientific literature serves as a means to secure knowledge ownership claims besides being an efficient vehicle for communicating this body of knowledge. It’s one of the unwritten rules in research community that a scientific experiment is not complete until results have been published. One of the issues this proposal would face if implemented is how to address the intellectual property (IP)(7)area. I have already mentioned that it will be left to authors to decide on what to be stored and what’s not for IP reasons. I suggest we leave it to authors the choice to opt in this scheme (ie all papers are opted out unless authors decide otherwise). The area of IP would have to be examined carefully and would represent an important part of the detailed plan of this proposal if put in practice.The future
Admittedly, this can prove a slow process; hence patience and determination from all involved will drive it forward to make it happen. It is an organic tool in the sense that it will grow dynamically and be refined as it gets larger and learn more to be “wiser.” Initially there will rapid quantitative growth as the database will increase in volume with every new article entered. With time, the database will mature and grow qualitatively. When the benefits of this database are reaped, there will hopefully be a positive effect on BMJ’s prospective authors. With this database we will create a self-tuning system of continuous refinement. To take it forward, I suggest we experiment with a pilot scheme and I will be happy to start the groundwork straightaway. I see this change, if taken up, as something that would send ripples to all other major journals. I sincerely hope that the BMJ will take the lead in this initiative. Over to you BMJ../
Azhar Alani, MBChB, MBA
Business Management Consultant
----------------------------------------------------------------
* BMJ - British Medical Journal, is just a representative example and not the only publication addressed by this article. Visit www.bmj.com
1) Trish Groves, Kamran Abbasi, “Screening research papers by reading abstracts”, BMJ 2004;329:470-471 (28 August).
2) B Nemery, “What happens to the manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication in Occupational and Environmental Medicine?” Occup. Environ Med. 2001;58;604-607.
3) Impact factor is an indicator that reflects the average number of citations received by the average article of a journal per year. For more on impact factor: Amin M, Mabe M. “Impact factors: use and abuse.” Perspectives in Publishing 2000;1-6.
4) Opthof T, Furstner F, van Geer M, et al, “Regrets or no regrets? No regrets! The fate of rejected manuscripts. Cardiovasc Res 2000;45;255-8.
5) Information on analysis of papers submitted to BMJ for publication can be found on BMJ website at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/advice/ms_breakdown.shtml
6) M Celeste Simon, “Writing a paper that will get published” The Scientist 15[7]: 30, April 2, 2001.
7) For more on intellectual property go to http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/
