Electronic letters to:

Research:
William A. Ghali, Jacques Cornuz, Finlay A. McAlister, Jean-Blaise Wasserfallen, P.J. Devereaux, and C. David Naylor
Accelerated publication versus usual publication in 2 leading medical journals
CMAJ 2002; 166: 1137-1143 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]
*eLetters: Submit a response to this article

Electronic letters published:

[Read eLetter] 'Usual Publication' taking a step down toward the rise of 'Accelerated Publication' ?
Ishay Lev, Prof. R Udasin, Head of Pediatric Surgery Department , Hadassah, Jerusalem   (25 June 2002)

'Usual Publication' taking a step down toward the rise of 'Accelerated Publication' ? 25 June 2002
Top
Ishay Lev,
GP
Family Medicine Department, Hadassah, Jerusalem,
Prof. R Udasin, Head of Pediatric Surgery Department , Hadassah, Jerusalem

Send letter to journal:
Re: 'Usual Publication' taking a step down toward the rise of 'Accelerated Publication' ?

levlev{at}hotmail.com Ishay Lev, et al.

In 1996 the Lancet published a Meta-Analysis of Tardive Dyskinesia related to the use of Neuroleptic Drugs. 500 Articles from well established medical journals were examined for their clinical contribution to the prevention or treatment of this condition. Although all of these articles went through proper Peer-Review screening before publication no clinical contribution was found in any of the 500 articles.(1) Another article in the Lancet reviewed 122 Randomized Controlled trials that were Peer-Reviewed and published in respectable Journals. These articles examined the Serotonin uptake by nerve cells. This Meta-Analysis has not found even one article that specified what and how was the process of randomization achieved.(1)

Another blow to the Journal based Peer-Review stile of publication came from technology. The Internet was founded in the beginning of the 1970 out of the Cold War efforts. It was formed for the exchange of knowledge between researchers from major American universities. The first university based four internet servers have grown exponentially to 110 mill' servers in 170 countries over the last 30 years.(2) The personal computer and the internet have pushed the role of the Publisher, Editor and Peer-Reviewer aside as any Doctor can now upload his findings to the internet and to the viewing by the 300 Mill' surfers present at any given moment. This means the slow process of medical publishing must go through some changes.(3)

The traditional Peer review Screening test was needed when a research contained a strong body of evidence and when it might had founded the basis for a change in the clinical world of medicine. For such a purpose we had to put our emphasis on the credibility of the collection and interpretation of the data presented. These parameters were usually the guard keepers for their inclusion in the journal.(4) Newer forms of medical publishing such as pre-prints (draft publishing) or even research protocols publishing (in the Lancet since 1997) already exist but do not capture the attention of most clinicians.

The presented Research by Ghali et al, in it's limitations has brought to attention the superb level of rapid publications by the Lancet and the Nejm. The rapid publication process as presented in this article does not suffer from any serious decrees in the quality of the research presented and from it's relevance and applicability. The obvious question this article raises is why have the Peer-Review Process at all when it can differ publication of crucial data to us clinicians or researchers by up-to a year. Is such a deferral even an acceptable possibility in the fast information age we live in. Maybe it is time to change the emphasis and have rapid publication as the mainstay of Medical scientific publication and the traditional Peer review Screening as an adjunct for only a number of important articles.

1.Chalmers I, Altman D.G. How can medical journals help prevent poor medical research ? Some opportunities presented by electronic publishing. The Lancet 1999, Vol 353:490-493.

2. Zakon R.H. Hobbes’ Internet Time Line. Available at http://www.zakon.org .

3. Gdalevich M et al. Pediatric Journals on the Internet. Acta Paediatr 2000 Vol 89:1032-5.

4. Eysenbach G. The impact of preprint servers and electronic publishing on biomedical research. Current opinion in Immunology 2000 Vol 12:499-503