| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, 2000 Percival Stern Hall, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118
 |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
 TOP INTRODUCTION TRADITIONSTRANSITIONSTHOUGHTS ABOUT THE FUTUREEPILOGUELITERATURE CITED |
|---|
At the beginning of my tenure, my predecessor, Dave Griffith, suggested that I should write an editorial outlining my philosophies. It seemed a good idea. I had some kind of amorphous but grandiose notion that I should inform Mycologia’s readership about my intentions to work hard and enforce appropriate scientific standards, how I hoped my efforts would enhance the way in which mycologists communicate the results of their research, and how I aspired to make Mycologia’s pages an ever better caretaker of their intellectual property. It wasn’t long, however, before the day-to-day mechanics of running the journal used up all my free time, tarnished my altruism and extinguished my delusions of authority. Although I had been an associate editor for several other journals, had reviewed hundreds of microbiological papers and had co-edited five books on fungi, none of my experience prepared me for this job. I already knew that editing was different from research and writing. What I didn’t know was how different being an editor in chief was from other kinds of editorial activities. An editor in chief’s job was a lot more than being able to differentiate a bad publication from a good one. For starters, it required skills in journalism that I did not possess. Frankly, I’d never paid any attention to the difference between a hyphen (–), an en dash (–) and an em dash (—). In fact, I’d never even heard of en and em dashes. Further, much of the job had nothing to do with either mycology or journalism; instead it involved time management and public relations. There was a constant stream of queries, by phone and by e-mail, from past authors, current authors, future authors, associate editors, reviewers, librarians, the production staff of the printer, the officers of the Mycological Society of America (MSA) and the occasional reporter who would want an authoritative opinion on moldy buildings, fairy rings or job opportunities for mycologists. Because I was not retired from my "real job," the unanticipated but frequent interruptions took some getting used to. It gradually dawned on me that I had two full-time jobs, one of which called for skills I would have to learn in my "spare time" as I went along.
For example, the editor in chief sometimes played a role as therapist. Ushering a paper through the publication process exposed something of the personalities of authors: the cooperative, the meek, the rigid, the confused, the irresponsible, the irascible and the impossible-to-please. When papers were rejected, some authors attempted emotional blackmail, explaining that their grant application or their tenure decision was dependent on that one paper. Even positive reviews evoked unpredictable responses. While most authors thanked the editors and reviewers for their input and improvements, and were happy to make revisions, others fought every suggested change down to the last Oxford comma. Something approaching euphoria was the response of most authors whose papers received good reviews and whose image had been selected for the cover. In contrast, other authors complained incessantly about the production process and the quality of color reproductions. If nothing else, being editor in chief has taught me that at least some mycologists live up to our reputation for eccentricity.
The most significant changes that have occurred during my time as editor in chief concern the Internet. It has been my fortune—or my misfortune—to be editor during the adolescence of the digital revolution. Because I am technologically challenged I had not planned to lead our march into cyberspace. Nevertheless, under my leadership, Mycologia has implemented a digital submission and tracking system that creates a mostly electronic workflow.
Now that I am passing the baton onto my successor, Professor Donald Natvig of the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque, I finally am finding time to write my editorial. I will summarize some of the big changes that have happened during the past four years and comment on some of the challenges I see ahead. In addition, I have asked the assistant editor, John Mitchell Donahue, to write a companion piece that contains practical advice about some of the more common matters of style and usage that potential authors regularly mess up.
|
TRADITIONS |
|---|
|
TOPINTRODUCTIONTRADITIONSTRANSITIONSTHOUGHTS ABOUT THE FUTUREEPILOGUELITERATURE CITED |
|---|
One big job at the Editorial Office is to create documents that are consistent in layout. Readers expect a standardized format and a uniform look across the pages. Headings and subheadings should be consistent. Figures should be numbered in the order in which they are mentioned in the text. References should all be cited in the same format. Another goal is more substantive. Mycologia is published in English and we try to uphold the grace of our language. We do constant battle against acronyms. We also do battle with jargon, although with less success. Mycologists depend on an enormous vocabulary of specialty terms (diatrypoid, erumpent, fructicolous, gonoplasm, hyphopodium, memnospore, mediopellis, and stigmatomycosis, to name but a few). My copy of Ainsworth and Bisby’s Dictionary of the Fungi has been in constant service.
The intellectual organization of papers is most important. Papers are written within the confines of a highly structured pattern: INTRODUCTION, METHODS, RESULTS and DISCUSSION. Scientists are not expected to present their findings in the same order they were discovered. The late sociologist Robert K. Merton championed the notion that the scientific paper is a fiction, a form of academic discourse that masks the disordered facts of what really happened. The structure imposes a formal narrative pattern that doesn’t necessarily reflect chronology or even original intentions. Some of the most difficult to edit papers are those written by authors who don’t understand that they should start writing their papers with their RESULTS and only later write their INTRODUCTION.
Former Editor in Chief David McLaughlin, during the early 1990s, had developed the editorial process that was in place when I took on the job. He had established a board of associate editors and purchased the software for a manuscript tracking system. Previously, editors in chief had had to find most of their own reviewers and keep track of hundreds of authors and reviewers as best they could with index cards, address books, and paper based files. In the system I inherited, authors submitted typed or word-processed copies of manuscripts through the postal service. A significant part of the editorial job simply was to open the mail and acknowledge the receipt of new papers. Many of the manuscripts came in scrupulously wrapped envelopes, sealed with multiple layers of tape, addressed by hand and plastered with exotic stamps. I easily could estimate the amount of work ahead by the height of the stack of manuscripts. After clipping together all the parts of the new submissions, I read the abstract and assigned an associate editor. Then the editorial assistant mailed two copies of the paper to the associate editor who, in turn, solicited two peer reviewers and mailed these manuscripts to them. (Count: four separate mailings for a paper to get from the authors to two reviewers). One copy, along with the original illustrations, was filed at the editorial offices. After the reviews were complete, they were mailed back to the associate editor. If the associate editor judged that the paper after revision was in acceptable range, he or she would forward the reviewer comments to the authors. The associate editor simultaneously informed our office by e-mail. Then we would copy edit the original manuscript and separately return it to the author. (Count again: This makes four more separate mailings, with each of two reviewers mailing their marked texts and comments to the associate editor and both the associate editor and the editor returning edited manuscripts to the author). Now the author made the appropriate revisions, incorporating both the copyediting and scientific changes, and mailed the revised manuscript to the associate editor. At this point, the author also was asked to provide a computer disk with a word-processed copy of the near-final revised manuscript. Most of the time, if the author had made suitable changes, the associate editor now mailed the whole works back to me with a recommendation to accept. (Count yet again: The manuscript has been mailed twice more). My job at this point was to look over the final revised manuscript to ensure that it met our standards. Once I had blessed a paper with final approval, authors were sent acceptance letters by e-mail and the manuscript itself entered our publication queue where it was carefully copy edited again. When sufficient manuscripts for an issue were gathered, a box of manuscripts was mailed to Allen Press. Allen Press in turn mailed galleys directly to authors, who sent their corrections to us. We would collect corrected galleys, make corrections of our own and return them in bulk to Allen Press. If you’ve been keeping track, you will have calculated that each manuscript traveled through the postal system a dozen times, even in this era of e-mail. Past editors, before the era of e-mail, also used the postal system for post cards acknowledging receipt, letters of acceptance and other miscellaneous correspondence.
|
TRANSITIONS |
|---|
|
TOPINTRODUCTIONTRADITIONSTRANSITIONSTHOUGHTS ABOUT THE FUTUREEPILOGUELITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Another major change that occurred under my watch, and for which again I have received undeserved credit, was the move to online publication. Linda Kohn, past president of MSA, provided much of the early impetus. She appointed a committee consisting of John Taylor, Jim Ginns and Rytas Vilgalys to investigate electronic publication. After looking at different options, the committee recommended to MSA Council that we adopt HighWire Press. HighWire is a division of the Stanford University Libraries, which advertises itself as "the largest repository of free full text life science articles in the world." HighWire provides on line access to journals such as Science, The New England Journal of Medicine and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (US) in addition to many other smaller societal publications. Starting with the Jan–Feb 2002 issue, Mycologia became available online. Now anyone with a computer connected to the Internet can retrieve the table of contents and abstracts. With a subscription and a password, readers have access to full text display of all articles and links to Medline, GenBank and interjournal links to other HighWire Press journals. MSA members may choose to receive an electronic-only subscription to Mycologia. All libraries that receive print subscriptions also qualify for an electronic subscription. Pre-2002 issues of Mycologia unfortunately are not yet available digitally because of the cost of scanning back issues.
The biggest change of all has been implemented in 2004. During my last year as editor, Assistant Editor John Donahue, Editorial Assistant Gerard Hebert and I have overseen the transition from the traditional mode of manuscript management to a digital system. Mycologia has adopted AllenTrack, the online system developed by Allen Press. The entire submission, tracking, and review process now takes place electronically. Authors are required to upload text, tables and image files in the right format. At Allen Press, an automatic PDF converter creates a single PDF file. Both the original text file and the PDF file are held on the AllenTrack servers. Editors and reviewers gain access to files via specific user IDs and protected passwords. Detailed instructions to authors, giving authors instructions for submitting online, were prepared by John Donahue and appeared in the Jan–Feb 2004 issue. These instructions are also available at http://www.mycologia.org/.
The electronic format obviates the need for traditional mailings. More important, it now is feasible to use editors and reviewers outside the USA without substantially slowing review time. Transmission of manuscripts to associate editors and reviewers is done almost instantly. Tracking the status of manuscripts becomes immeasurably easier. In the not too distant future, the new system also will make the Editorial Office more efficient because the repetitive clerical tasks associated with filing, creating cover letters and keeping track of the status of manuscripts all are automated. But until a technology becomes so widespread and familiar that the user doesn’t have to think about how to use it, there is an inevitable learning period during which it actually can take longer to do things the new way than the old way. In the business world, support services provide backing to accompany technology transformations. In the world of academic and government research, where most of our authors work, individual scientists are left to learn on their own. While authors, associate editors and reviewers are becoming comfortable with the new technology, we editors find that in addition to editing the manuscripts we also need to do a lot of handholding.
In the race to publish online some enthusiasts of the communications revolution forget that digital systems are not panaceas that cure all the ills that afflict professional publications. For example, one of the biggest problems facing an editor in chief is turnaround time. The electronic manuscript management system definitely facilitates transmittal of papers; online correction of proofs is a genuine boon. Yet we all have read enough publications on the Internet to know that many of them are filled with errors and oversights. It requires an intelligent human being doing conventional editing and reviewing to get it right. AllenTrack changes the mechanics but not the content of our job. Most important, informed peer review is essential in making a judgment on the value of the material. When any one reviewer or associate editor procrastinates, it delays the entire process. The editor in chief can prod by letter, by phone, by fax and by e-mail, but when human inertia sets in, none of these tactics do much good. Manuscript transmittal now occurs at warp speed. Peer review still proceeds at a human pace. Some parts of the process are simply beyond the reach of technology.
Finally, electronic publications have their own technological constraints. Platforms and browsers must be compatible. Download time can be problematic for individuals who rely on a traditional telephone line. The archiving of electronic material, the next critical step, remains an unsettled issue.
|
THOUGHTS ABOUT THE FUTURE |
|---|
|
TOPINTRODUCTIONTRADITIONSTRANSITIONSTHOUGHTS ABOUT THE FUTUREEPILOGUELITERATURE CITED |
|---|
What will happen in the next 10 years? It’s safe to say that color will become even more prevalent and that the technology for reading electronic materials will improve. Text routinely will be supplemented by videos, sound, three-dimensional models of morphological and chemical structures, and other features that hard-copy journals can’t provide. It will be feasible to publish extensive negative results. Traditional page numbers and indices will become less important and information retrieval will become easier. Wireless communications also will alter the landscape.
The changes in technology already have brought many new challenges, apart from editing. The biggest challenge is economic. Now is a time of great uncertainty for journals and professional societies. In the USA, private universities are scrambling for ways to keep tuition down and most state governments have cut back allocations to education. These trends put pressure on already tight budgets at university libraries. International institutional support is similarly soft. For decades, the real prices of science and technological journals have increased faster than the consumer price index, largely due to the high prices charged by commercial publishers (Walker 1998
). Mycologia, even among noncommercial publications, has bucked this trend and remains a bargain. The North American (USA and Canada) 2003 subscription price for Mycologia, for both print and online subscription is $175; the online-only version is $160. Nevertheless, each year the number of Mycologia subscriptions drops a little. We are not alone among scientific journals. The traditional model of scientific publication is breaking down; a stable new model has not yet emerged. Despite many predictions that electronic publication will be an economical alternative to traditional paper publication, to date these savings have not materialized.
The traditional balance sheet for scientific publishing goes something like this: Scientists supply the journal content at "no cost;" other scientists provide the peer review at "no cost;" and the editor in chief and associate editors work at "no cost." ("No cost" refers to monetary outlays from the professional society. Obviously, volunteer time represents what economists call an "opportunity cost.") The direct financial expenses entailed by MSA include a salary for editorial assistants, payments to Allen Press for the production, printing and distribution of the journal and to HighWire Press for online publication. Where does the money come from? One source is page charges. Since 1961, the federal government has let federal agencies and federal grants subsidize publications by nonprofit publishers such as Mycologia. Membership dues are another significant income stream. The most important source of revenue is library subscriptions. Ironically, electronic publishing has increased our expenses but not our revenue. MSA now pays both HighWire and Allen Press for publication of Mycologia, without a concomitant increase in the number of library subscriptions, member subscriptions or page charges. The manuscript management fee charged by AllenTrack costs more money per manuscript than we save in postal charges and clerical salaries.
Another real challenge to our economic health comes from inside the scientific community. In 1999, Harold Varmus, Nobel laureate and then director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), proposed an all encompassing online electronic archive for biomedical research called E-biomed, now called Public Library of Science (PLoS), that would give "free, fast, and full access" to biomedical literature, from pre-print to reprint, to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. Copyright restriction on redistribution or re-use of materials also would be lifted. NIH would supply technical and financial support (Marshal 1999).
Because the open access system is free to users, there are no subscription fees, which in turn means there is no subscription income to professional societies. But, just as "there are no free lunches," there are no free journals. It is impossible to publish a journal without spending money. To publish a high quality, well-edited journal costs even more money. The PLoS model, also joined by BioMed Central (BMC), is generally referred to as the "Open Access" movement. With Open Access the loss in subscription fees would be made up by charging both submission and acceptance fees to authors. In other words PLoS would turn the traditional model on its head. It would be free to libraries and readers but not to authors.
The Open Access model has been supported by a who’s who in contemporary biology. PLoS now publishes two electronic journals and charges authors a flat fee of $1500 per article.
While almost everyone agrees that the results of scientific research should be widely disseminated, the particular economic model proposed by PLoS and BioMed Central has been criticized (Farnham and Brinkley 2004). More traditional business models such as those supported through HighWire Press also are viable. Martin Frank, executive director of the American Physiological Society, put it succinctly: "Open does not mean free" (Frank 2004). The "author pays" model has implications beyond the long-term viability of journals. It means that in the USA scientists with big grants would have an even greater advantage over less affluent scientists than they do already. The repercussions for international science are even larger. Further, organizations that do make profits from their journals will not be able to funnel this money back into meetings, awards, fellowships and other traditional societal functions.
Not-for-profit publishers and societies have joined together in the search for a middle ground. While committed to providing wide access and dissemination of published research, they believe that the centralized, NIH-dominated economic model proposed by PLoS goes too far. On 16 Mar 2004, representative from a number of scientific societies and publishers proposed "The Washington, DC, Principles for Free Access to Science" (http://www.dcprnciples.org/). I have recommended to David McLaughlin, MSA president, and to Don Natvig, the new editor in chief of Mycologia, that MSA and Mycologia sign on as supporters of the Washington, DC, principles.
|
EPILOGUE |
|---|
|
TOPINTRODUCTIONTRADITIONSTRANSITIONSTHOUGHTS ABOUT THE FUTUREEPILOGUELITERATURE CITED |
|---|
As I retire, I am pleased to report that Mycologia remains resilient and it remains a bargain. Best of all, the quality of submitted manuscripts continues to be high. To the many associate editors, reviewers and friends who have helped me over the past four years, I extend my profound thanks. I am especially grateful to Mary Langlois, John Donahue and Gerard Hebert for their editorial assistance and friendship. Jim Ginns has been a fine collaborator as managing editor. The officers of MSA have been uniformly supportive. In conclusion, and paraphrasing the late Philip Abelson, long term editor of Science: It has been a privilege to be the custodian of this uniquely valuable mycological resource.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
|
LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
|
TOPINTRODUCTIONTRADITIONSTRANSITIONSTHOUGHTS ABOUT THE FUTUREEPILOGUELITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Frank M. 2004. Open does not mean free! The Physiologist 47:1–2.[Medline]
Marshall E. 1999. Varmus defends E-biomed proposal, prepares to push ahead. Science 284:2062–2063.
Walker TJ. 1998. Free Internet access to traditional journals. American Scientist 86:463–471.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
