I was surprised to learn about the dismissal of CMAJ’s editor-in-chief and the disbandment of the CMAJ’s journal oversight committee.1 One of the reasons given for such actions was that the journal’s reputation and revenue have been slipping. Indeed, CMAJ’s impact factor has been slightly declining the past few years. However, the reputation of the journal is not just the impact factor.
The main goal of most medical journals is improving medical care by publishing sound scientific articles (both research and practice papers) and focusing on topics that are of great importance to its readership. Secondary journalistic goals include improving the impact factor and breaking hot medical news. Because publishing a medical journal is a business like any other business, there are also business goals, which include increasing revenue and receiving financial support from industry. Typically, the business goals are the prerogative of journal owners. All these incentives may be conflicting.
Given that editorial independence is valued by both authors and readers, the hiring and firing of the editors is occasionally fiercely debated because it raises questions about editorial freedom and the culture of journals.2
So, what makes a good journal great? First and foremost, there is the team of dedicated and highly qualified editors who provide valuable guidance on the journal contents. In addition, there are manuscript authors, equally important as the editors. Ultimately, they are the ones conducting research, writing and rewriting drafts, and submitting the manuscript in hopes that it will be published. Then, there are the reviewers, who advise the editors on the importance and novelty of the findings and the soundness of the research methodology. Finally, there are the readers, who look to the journal for accurate and up-to-date scientific and clinical information.
It is the editors’ integrity and independence that guarantee a proper editorial process and the quality of published contents. Any interference from the journal owners in the editorial matter may greatly disrupt the fine balance of editorial independence. Surely, the dismissal of the editor-in-chief and the disbandment of the journal oversight committee leave the impression of unnecessary leverage over the journal and its editors. The current CMA actions are reminiscent of the ones that unfolded a decade ago. Such turmoil may in fact raise authors’ and readers’ doubts as to the editorial independence and the quality of published articles.
I hope the CMA Board will remember the words of Thomas Jefferson: “That government is best which governs least.” The main thrust of the quote is the idea that government, or the owner in this instance, should not intervene in the life of its journal any more than is absolutely necessary.