As the author suggests….its been a long time since I sat down with a journal and just opened it and read it. Even when I got hardcopies it was always selective reading based on table of contents.
This article seems more geared to authors looking for a banner under which to publish their work, rather than ensuring the quality of the work that does get published.
I would submit that journals themselves have lost trust and have some work to do if they hope to earn it back. It seems far too common for journals and editors to allow outsized claims and conclusion statements in papers that are unsupported by the content of those papers themselves. There should be a very high bar before an author can make conclusion statements asserting causation. And if the work doesn’t sustain such a statement, then such statements should not be publishable.
IMO journals have a gatekeeper role in ensuring the merit of what they publish. I’m not sure that role has primacy anymore in a landscape where it seems journals will publish anything simply to justify their own existence.
I do agree that in general editorials have became less critical and more congratulatory - a loss for medicine. But sites like Sensible Medicine (and others) have tried to highlight both the strengths and challenges of major studies. And as you point out many journals do allow for commenting.
I also agree that journals rarely have opposing political views expressed. NEJM does a great job with respect to clinical issues - clinical question posed and then 2 authors with different views respond. It would be nice to see the same with some of the sensitive issues where journals have generally avoided much debate.
A little too academic for me but it’s ok. For myself it’s been a downhill course since the days of Dr. Ingelfinger. Specifically the NEJM is almost an embarrassment. Unless you’re woke the introductory faux liberal screeds belong more in Pravda. Most of us skip them entirely. And then their editorials just regurgitate what the article’s authors tried to fool you. I remember when the editor dug into the weaknesses of the article. No more. They’re all made men.
Then there’s the late lamented JAMA. When’s the last time I found any medicine in it. It’s all social commentary.
And both the aforementioned journals don’t brook constructive criticism. I teach my residents always to view the comments. Within 6 or 7 you’ll see an interesting idea. Not possible with the above journals. It’s easier for a camel to enter…than to comment real time or read real time others thoughts on their articles.
This is a worthwhile topic, but I think the following substack speaks more to the point that Journals are obsolete and every institution and scientist is paying way too much for publishing and reading Journals https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-one-science-reform-we-can-all?utm_source=multiple-personal-recommendations-email&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true
As the author suggests….its been a long time since I sat down with a journal and just opened it and read it. Even when I got hardcopies it was always selective reading based on table of contents.
This article seems more geared to authors looking for a banner under which to publish their work, rather than ensuring the quality of the work that does get published.
I would submit that journals themselves have lost trust and have some work to do if they hope to earn it back. It seems far too common for journals and editors to allow outsized claims and conclusion statements in papers that are unsupported by the content of those papers themselves. There should be a very high bar before an author can make conclusion statements asserting causation. And if the work doesn’t sustain such a statement, then such statements should not be publishable.
IMO journals have a gatekeeper role in ensuring the merit of what they publish. I’m not sure that role has primacy anymore in a landscape where it seems journals will publish anything simply to justify their own existence.
Michael
I do agree that in general editorials have became less critical and more congratulatory - a loss for medicine. But sites like Sensible Medicine (and others) have tried to highlight both the strengths and challenges of major studies. And as you point out many journals do allow for commenting.
I also agree that journals rarely have opposing political views expressed. NEJM does a great job with respect to clinical issues - clinical question posed and then 2 authors with different views respond. It would be nice to see the same with some of the sensitive issues where journals have generally avoided much debate.
HCB
A little too academic for me but it’s ok. For myself it’s been a downhill course since the days of Dr. Ingelfinger. Specifically the NEJM is almost an embarrassment. Unless you’re woke the introductory faux liberal screeds belong more in Pravda. Most of us skip them entirely. And then their editorials just regurgitate what the article’s authors tried to fool you. I remember when the editor dug into the weaknesses of the article. No more. They’re all made men.
Then there’s the late lamented JAMA. When’s the last time I found any medicine in it. It’s all social commentary.
And both the aforementioned journals don’t brook constructive criticism. I teach my residents always to view the comments. Within 6 or 7 you’ll see an interesting idea. Not possible with the above journals. It’s easier for a camel to enter…than to comment real time or read real time others thoughts on their articles.
Sorry for the thoughts of disillusionment.