Annals, building on the progress of previous years and enabling us to look forward to 2013 with confidence. We continue to receive large numbers of submissions. In 2012 over 1,000 articles were offered to us, of which a quarter were research papers. The quality of these research papers has improved and we now receive very few audits. (We rarely publish single-unit audits.)It has been a satisfying year for the During this year, we have managed to maintain a very short time between acceptance and publication (on average about 3–4 months), and our thanks go to an excellent production team, our copy editor Tara Nikovskis and our new typesetters Hobbs, who have done an excellent job in their first year. We said goodbye to Jon Hackett, our Production Manager, who has moved to an academic post. We are fortunate to have Matthew Whitaker, who stepped into his shoes and continued the high standard that this role requires.We continue to rely heavily on our reviewers (who are acknowledged elsewhere in this issue). They help maintain the high standard of research publications, reflected again in our rising impact factor, which now stands at 1.231.Annals and the Bulletin caused some confusion so we have tried to make the separate channels of submission for either the Annals or the Bulletin clearer to ensure that papers are considered appropriately from the outset.During 2012, we have continued to improve the functions of our online submission system. This is getting a further overhaul in the coming weeks, when authors submitting research papers should find it easier to use. We recognise that our existing submission channel including both the Our Technical Section continues to flourish under the editorship of Bruce Campbell. This section is a constant source of interest, and here too we have reduced the time between acceptance and publication. A notable success this year has been collection of all the published technical notes and tips into a single volume. This has only been possible because of the hard work of the editors Mike McCarthy and Bruce Campbell as well as Adam Brownsell from the Publications Department. Over 700 articles have been compiled, sorted and made available on the College website and can be searched and downloaded free of charge, allowing readers to browse and search through the combined experience and knowledge of hundreds of surgeons gathered over a decade of practice.Annals and Bulletin.Our first Associate Editor has completed her term of office this year. Jyoti Shah has made a tremendous contribution in this role and has taken responsibility for editing review articles. She has now moved into a ‘senior’ position as Review Editor. Jyoti also managed the publication of a series of reviews of perioperative care and, after a brief rest, this series will return later in the year. We now have a new Associate Editor, who will have the opportunity to learn from the inside about scientific journal publication. Masood Khan, a consultant urologist in Leicester, will be developing his own project to enhance the content of the Annals continues to support the high standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics in relation to all such matters.Dual publication remains a recurring issue. A further case was brought to our attention by an alert reader. (See notice on page 25). Authors should be aware that any material published in paper or online formats should be original and that dual publication represents serious publication malpractice. The In this issue we have included a notice from the National Institute for Health Research National Surgery Specialty Group. This underlines our commitment to research in all the specialties of surgery, and we will publish regular updates of surgical trials in progress in the UK and approved by this group.Annals has been involved in working with the British Journal of Surgery to establish a one-day course entitled How to Write a Surgical Paper. This is based heavily on the course developed by Professor Derek Alderson for the British Journal of Surgery. We at the Annals feel it is appropriate that the College should offer this excellent training course to surgeons in all disciplines. The first course will run on 1 March and we hope it will become a regular feature of the College education programme.Looking forward to the New Year, we will maintain our average acceptance-to-publication time below four months and look to improve manuscript handling. On behalf of the College, the Annals during the coming year.Finally, we have had two successful cover image competitions with a range of interesting and varied images submitted by readers. This year we will carry a series of illustrations related to surgical operations, prepared by surgical illustrators. There will be no competition for an overall prize but readers who require the services of an illustrator will be able to find contact details attached to each contribution. We hope you enjoy these images as well as the scientific content of the


In the third volume of JODDD, we have brought a number of changes to the journal. The layout of the pages has changed to accommodate for information on online access to articles on the first page, and also the new licensing of articles, which are now under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. This approach is taken to further keep in line with open access publishing. With the type of the articles identified on the first page of each article, we are placing more emphasis on other types of materials that we are planning to include in our journal—letters to the editor, commentaries, short communications—in addition to original articles and case reports that we publish.We are pleased to announce that starting with our third volume (2009), Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects is covered by Elsevier’s Expert Medica database for healthcare professionals (EMCare). With higher visibility for the published articles, authors will enjoy a broader audience for their articles. This will definitely make the journal more attractive to authors to publish their work in our journal. In fact, as we move forward and the journal is firmly established, we witness an increasing number of submissions to the journal, and we hope this will eventually lead to more quality material being published. This in fact means more editorial workload and a need for a broader pool of voluntary reviewers to undertake the task of peer review. We are trying our best to prevent delays in the review and editing processes in order to timely publish research material. However, without the help of our editorial board members and external reviewers, such a mission would be impossible. We are asking every interested specialist to register with our journal’s online system at our website as reviewers and let us approach them with a submission to review. We hereby have to thank the members of our editorial board and all the reviewers that undertook the task of reviewing manuscripts during 2008.New proposals for treatment modalities, patient care, dental materials, equipment, and techniques are definitely welcome in our journal to make up the “prospects” section of the journal. We would like to see such a section become a useful forum for dental practitioners from all over the globe. While other sections will focus on articles of already established subjects, this forum will attempt to stay at the cutting edge, providing a think tank for future research proposals.In this issue, we have articles from almost all disciplines of dentistry, and although this implies a general attitude for the journal, this trend can attract more specialized readership to certain articles in our journal. We would like to receive comments from specialists on certain articles of interest and we would be pleased to publish those commentaries under a special section to facilitate scholarly communication. This will also help the general dental practitioners’ vision on various aspects of prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. We are inviting all dental practitioners from all over the world, to share with us their comments and points of view, which will definitely help us in shaping a highly prestigious journal.


A little over eighteen months ago, the Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC), with the support of the Michigan State University Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy launched Standards in Genomic Sciences (SIGS). It was a bold experiment in open access publishing that was undertaken to fill a set of unmet needs within the broad community of genome biologists and bioinformaticians. It sought to create a new publishing niche with a series of novel article types to provide readers with highly structured and standards-compliant reports on genome and metagenome sequencing projects, in-depth standard operating procedures for analytical pipelines used in genome and metagenome analyses, and in-depth meeting reports, white-papers and other relevant articles to inform the community of ongoing activities of the GSC and other standards formulating bodies within the life sciences.With the publication of this issue of SIGS, we are pleased to announce that we have passed two important milestones. The first, which is of significance to authors, is that articles appearing in SIGS are now archived in PubMed Central and all of our content is available through the PubMed Central site, as well as the redesigned SIGS site. The second milestone is that over 100 short genome reports have now been published in SIGS. Based on the number of published genome reports, this places SIGS in third place among all journals publishing genome reports. Equally impressive is the acceptance of SIGS by the community at large. Articles appearing in SIGS have been downloaded over 50,000 times, and that rate has seen a steady increase over time.Of course, the success of any scientific publication is a function of the quality of the articles that it publishes. This can only happen when there are dedicated authors and reviewers. This is especially true for a start-up publication that does not have an established publication trail. Sustainability is also a concern for any organization publishing an open access journal. We were quite fortunate to have our start-up costs covered by two grants. However, those grants will soon come to an end and we will need to charge a modest publication fee to cover production costs. We are indebted to those authors who took a chance and published their findings in SIGS and to Michigan State University and the Department of Energy for their support. We look forward to SIGS becoming the publication of choice for genome and metagenome articles, SOPs, meeting reports and other articles of interest to the community in the future.


Should those who work on ethics welcome or resist moves to open access publishing? This paper analyses arguments in favour and against the increasing requirement for open access publishing and considers their implications for bioethics research. In the context of biomedical science, major funders are increasingly mandating open access as a condition of funding and such moves are also common in other disciplines. Whilst there has been some debate about the implications of open-access for the social sciences and humanities, there has been little if any discussion about the implications of open access for ethics. This is surprising given both the central role of public reason and critique in ethics and the fact that many of the arguments made for and against open access have been couched in moral terms. In what follows I argue that those who work in ethics have a strong interest in supporting moves towards more open publishing approaches which have the potential both to inform and promote richer and more diverse forms of public deliberation and to be enriched by them. The importance of public deliberation in practical and applied ethics suggests that ethicists have a particular interest in the promotion of diverse and experimental forms of publication and debate and in supporting new, more creative and more participatory approaches to publication. Journal des sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in the middle of the 17th Century. The centrality of deliberation, critique and contestation to academic knowledge production means that publication will always be an important part of academic work. The form taken by such publishing, its economic basis, and its relation to the processes of knowledge production and consumption are, however, currently very much in question as the subscription-based journal increasingly comes under threat from moves towards open-access models of publishing. In the context of biomedical science major funders such as the Wellcome Trust and the US National Institutes of Health are mandating open access as a condition of funding and such moves are also increasingly common in other disciplines [Scholarly journals have been at the heart of academic life since the publication of the ciplines . Whilst By far the most common argument made for open-access by scientists and science funders is one that springs from a widely-held belief that the sharing of data will lead to more rapid scientific progress and a reduction in unnecessary duplication of scientific effort. In the context of the humanities and social sciences these arguments are sometimes complemented by those emphasising the important role of open and critically reflective communities of practice and the potential for open access to support the creation of spaces for constructive criticism and epistemological economies of scale which mean that research can be deeper, richer, broader, and – where appropriate – faster. Whilst greater speed may not always, or even often, be conducive to better public reason on moral matters, it is nonetheless sometimes important for ethical deliberation to be timely – for example in the case of the proposed introduction of novel biotechnologies or changes in Government policy. Furthermore, the role of ethics in critically reflecting upon all of the normative arguments pertinent to important moral questions suggests that ethicists and those concerned with public reason in ethics ought to be strongly in favour of the availability of both empirical and normative literature relevant to the question under consideration. To the extent that access to important arguments is limited public reason is necessarily in this regard impoverished.A second argument in favour of open-access, particularly – but not only - in the context of publically funded research, is one grounded in claims about obligations of reciprocity. The findings of research funded by the public should, it is argued, be made freely available to those who have paid for it. This is an argument about the nature of the researcher’s social licence to practice and the responsibilities of academics and those who spend public money to contribute to the dissemination of knowledge. The current subscription based model of scholarly publication limits access to those in institutions or with the resources to cover the cost of subscriptions. Open access, by contrast, reflects the social value of increased public understanding of, engagement with, and involvement in academic knowledge production. The argument from reciprocity is of course particularly relevant in the context of research, including that in ethics, carried out in low-income settings. Where research is carried out in such settings there is for example an obligation to ensure as far as is possible that resulting publications are available to colleagues in low-income settings, and where appropriate to relevant policy makers. This suggests that such research should wherever possible be published in on-line open access journals. In the context of medical research, there is an increasing emphasis on the ethical requirement for such research to have ‘social value’ . There sThird, it has been argued that subscription-based models of publishing are unfair and exploitative because they require publically-funded academics to submit their work to commercially run journals, to carry out peer-review and sit as members of editorial boards, and then to pay to access the fruits of their own intellectual labour. The monopolistic position of publishers of academic journals means, it is argued, that they profit unfairly out of the - free - labour of academic researchers because they are able to place restrictions on who can gain access to knowledge and who is to count as a knowledge producer.Finally, and relatedly, some have suggested that the current subscription-based system is inherently conservative and has the potential to lead to a narrowing of intellectual and scholarly life. By contrast, models of open-access publishing offer the possibility of moving away from an approach to publication driven by the branding and marketing imperatives of journals and their overly rigid views about disciplinary boundaries and publication formats. Open access initiatives have the potential to lead to the development of new, creative and more productive communities of publishing practice and the generation of new forms of understanding and research collaboration. This argument, coupled with the first argument above – about the potential for open access to enrich moral debate – is likely to be particularly attractive to those working in ethics. For, whilst, philosophically minded ethicists are rightly wary of arguments placing special value on majority views, it is nonetheless important for the quality and relevance of moral deliberation that as wide a range as possible of relevant arguments and claims is brought into the domain of public reason. Open access initiatives in ethics have the potential to ensure that debate is enriched by a far wider range of potentially relevant arguments.empirical claim. But, will open access in fact generate more, better, faster research? While there may be good reasons for believing that it will, this should not be taken for granted. In the context of biomedical research, for example, the potential for open-access to fail to support sustainable scientific collaboration is explicitly acknowledged in the Fort Lauderdale Agreement  which highlights the crucial role of ‘scientific etiquette’ in sustainable scientific collaboration [The claim that open access will encourage more and better research is an boration ,5. Such Many of the arguments against open access have been targeted at what has come to be known as the ‘Gold Model’ – a model which has already been adopted by some journals and was recently favoured by the United Kingdom’s Finch Committee. In brief, the Gold Model involves a shift from the current subscription-based approach to one in which authors (which in practice means their institutions) pay to cover the costs of (open access) publishing. One argument that has been made against this model is that like the subscription model it may in some cases favour the financial interests of publishers. This, it is argued, is a model in which the public continues to pay both for the production of knowledge and for access to it and from which commercial publishers will continue to profit because the costs charged by the journals do not reflect the true costs as much of the key labour will continue to be carried out for free by publically funded academics. Whilst this may in itself be insufficient reason to reject the Gold Model, it does suggest that if it is to be justified it will need to be complemented by transparency about its real costs to ensure good value for public money. A further, related argument against a formal requirement for publically-funded researchers and research institutions to publish in open access journals is that this will mean that the private sector will have unlimited access to publically funded research but no reciprocal responsibility to make its own findings, which may have been made possible by access to the fruits of publically funded research, freely available. Were this asymmetry to persist, private research organisations and commercial publishers would be able to benefit unfairly from a publically funded knowledge subsidy. Clearly such arguments would have less force were there to be a shift towards the view that privately funded research, particularly that which benefits through access to publically funded research ought itself to be made available in open access formats.Another argument that has been made against the Gold Model of open access is that it has the potential to lead to the emergence of a conservative approach to publishing driven by the needs of a small number of high impact journals and by the requirements of forms of academic audit such as the UK’s Research Excellence Framework. Against this background, the Gold Model of open access might have only very limited potential to generate the increased discussion and better and faster knowledge production promised by its advocates and might contribute still further to the narrowing of debate and of the forms of academic knowledge production: limiting the freedom of open access to be truly innovative and open. A related claim is that the author pays approach epitomised by the Gold Model would further entrench divisions between richer and poor institutions and would further institutionalise knowledge production by widening the divide between independent researchers and those affiliated with academic institutions. They will be separated by the costs of publication rather than by those of subscription. Paradoxically, just as more data are being made publically available by open access models of data-release it may become less easy for independent researchers to publish the results of their research using these data. Whilst it is clear that the ethos of many existing open-access journals, such as for example BMC Medical Ethics, is informed by a commitment to the promotion of broad and inclusive debate, such a possibility needs nonetheless to be taken seriously. One way in which these concerns might perhaps be alleviated is though the wider use of fee waivers or through the availability of means-tested subsidies.Should those who work on ethics welcome or resist moves to open access publishing? Whilst all of the arguments above are relevant to ethics, it seems undeniable that those who are working in areas of practical and applied ethics – such as for example, bioethics – ought to place particular value on the potential for their research to contribute to, and to benefit from, public deliberation. Whilst all academic knowledge has the potential to be of public value, applied ethics is specifically concerned with the normative analysis of issues relevant to contemporary policy and practice and with the promotion of public discussion. This would suggest that, whatever their views about particular models of open access, those who work in ethics ought to have a strong interest in supporting moves away from subscription-based publishing (particularly when the price of such subscriptions is well beyond the reach of most members of the public) towards more open approaches which have the potential both to inform and promote rich and diverse forms of public deliberation and to be enriched by them. Whichever model ends up being finally adopted in the wider academy, the importance of public deliberation in practical and applied ethics suggests that ethicists ought also to have a particular interest in the promotion of diverse and experimental forms of publication and debate and in supporting new, more creative and more participatory approaches to open access publication that reach beyond any that are likely to be commercially viable or profitable.I declare that I have no competing interests.The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/14/16/prepub


JCHIMP. It is 3 months later than planned. This is not as serious as with paper journals .This is the third and final issue of volume 3 of JCHIMP in 2010, we made the decision to publish quarterly because of editorial preferences and input from other teaching faculties. Even though this delayed the publication of some manuscripts by a few months, it was still much faster than most paper manuscript processes.Some Internet open-access journals publish individual articles as they are accepted. When we organized This publishing style was one of the many decisions that were required as we organized the journal. Our intent was to provide an efficient outlet for scholarly work produced primarily in community hospital internal medicine residency programs. We had no illusions about financial profitability. Keeping expenses under control and developing support from hospitals and programs was our goal.Medical Education Online and had extensive experience with this media. He referred us to Co-Action Publishing in Stockholm, Sweden. They have been outstanding in every respect, fulfilling their obligations, and at the same time, keeping costs down.David Solomon was our guide . He was JCHIMP was intended to fill a void caused by the demise of many regional paper journals (www.cherninfo.net), CHERN, an organization formed 2 years earlier from the community hospital subgroup of the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine (APDIM). We planned to seek out authors and peer reviewers from this constituency. We would review and publish the scholarly activities of community hospital programs, including opinion-oriented perspectives, original research , case reports, and columns of interest such as radiologic and human imaging, electrocardiography, medical education innovations, and the history of medicine. This technology would allow us to link to video images , 92 manuscripts had been published. One hundred and forty-one peer reviewers have participated; 88 this year . Many ofJCHIMP hiatus. Circumstances stalled JCHIMP. I had decided to move to Greater Baltimore Medical Center. As founder, editor, and chairman of the editorial board, this dictated a restructuring in the financial support we had received from Medstar Union Memorial Hospital since 2010. The editorial process stopped while awaiting resolution; all except manuscript submissions, which continued unabated.In July, 2013, there was a JCHIMP and Co-Action Publishing in that the current Internal Medicine Residency Review Committee Special Requirements do not recognize non-PMID peer-reviewed publications when assessing program scholarly activity during the accreditation review process (Ironically, it was during this month that the journal received notice from PubMed via our publisher that we were now ‘indexed’. All 92 papers published since volume 1, # 1 were retroactively indexed. This was a crucial achievement for  process .JCHIMP's primary problem. There has been criticism in the paper journal literature of the predatory nature of many Internet journals, evolving into profit status organizations, frequently charging exorbitant publication fees (JCHIMP is at the other end of that spectrum and is most definitely not profitable. We have charged no more than $350 for a publication fee and most of the invited papers are not charged any fee. This was a consensus decision by the editorial board. One of our beliefs is that any worthwhile submission should be published regardless of the author's ability to pay.The financial deficit requiring subsidization was ion fees , 7. In mWe now have a new financial model. Our goal is to be self-sufficient in the near future. There will be a modest increase in the publication fee. With our indexing status, we anticipate more potential publications, so much so that we plan to increase to six issues a year rather than four. Other tinkering is being done to create revenue enhancement including residency recruitment advertising, special subscription status, and general fund raising.We wish to thank Medstar and Union Memorial Hospital for the support provided to the journal during its formative years. We welcome my new department of medicine at GBMC as our new benefactor.Also in this issue are 10 other manuscripts. Two research studies are very relevant to community teaching hospitals and their faculties: one demonstrates the five station resident interview model which can potentially improve efficiency without sacrificing reliability in the laborious residency application process ; the othRobert P. Ferguson, MDEditor


Free and informed consent of participants in research studies is a cornerstone of biomedical research, but this has not always been the case. Cells derived from tumor tissue of an American woman without her consent more than 60 years ago and named HeLa cells were eventually identified as belonging to Henrietta Lacks, a fact that became widely known in 2010 upon publication of a bestselling book about the woman and her cellular legacy . HeLa ceG3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics—a peer-reviewed, peer-edited, open-access journal of the Genetics Society of America—published early online an article in which the authors described the genome sequence of a HeLa cell line that promises to increase its utility and reveal its limitations for research. Soon after release of that article, the authors withdrew access to the sequence data in response to concerns about genetic privacy that the Lacks family expressed to Rebecca Skloot about their genetic privacy.To fulfill our responsibility to disseminate important research results, the editors of Today, regulations in the United States and elsewhere require that consent be obtained before deriving a cell line from an identified person’s tissue. But what should be done with useful cell lines derived long ago without proper consent, or in cases in which that consent could not anticipate future uses? Do we have obligations to the descendants of the original “donor?” Our recently acquired ability to decode DNA sequences of whole genomes has brought this dilemma into sharp focus.G3 will work with the authors of the study to make the sequence data available in a way that responds to the concerns of the Lacks family.As responsible academic researchers and editors, we must seize this opportunity to address, in a constructive way, the questions raised by the study. In the short term, the editors of One thing is clear: the sequence information will add immeasurable value to the large amount of genetic information available in the public domain about the HeLa cell genome, helping ensure that these cells continue to catalyze advances in cell and cancer biology. We must arrive at a resolution soon because publishing an article while withholding access to the underlying (genomic) data is incongruent with our goals as scientists and publishers.Beyond the short term, the Genetics Society of America intends to encourage thoughtful conversations on the ethical issues raised by this case, with the goal of helping to develop common standards for the acquisition and distribution of personal genomic information. Because of the significance of the questions, those conversations should engage those with appropriate expertise and experience, away from the “madding crowd’s [sometimes] ignoble strife.” But we must move with dispatch to engage the entire community in seeking solutions because everyone—scientists, clinicians, ethicists, and the public—has a stake in the outcome. Please collaborate with us in this important discussion.


Scientific writing and publication marks the endpoint of research that has been performed, completed, peer reviewed and accepted, and complements teaching and training, clinical service and patient care. Writing has numerous benefits, one of the most important ones being the inherent training undertaken to better appreciate and evaluate the published work of others. Effective scientific writing is an important component of a radiologist’s practice, and should be cultivated at an early stage of the career. The reasons for scientific writing range from noble to base reasons. Topping the list is altruism, where one writes for the pleasure derived from the creative activity of writing and from sharing one’s intellectual pursuits, as well as for the desire to advance human knowledge for the benefit of mankind. For these authors, writing is a channel for expressing the joy of scientific discovery. At the bottom of the list, writing may be considered by some to be a chore where getting published is a ‘necessary evil’ in order to fulfil certain specific minimum requirements, e.g. for getting a job or a promotion.Writing is one of the marks of human civilisation - an advanced means by which humans communicate with each other. A published article is indisputable evidence of research that has been performed, completed, and accepted by peers. Publication is also an indicator of achievement of a certain academic standard. Besides communication of a finalised piece of research, the written work is the basis for further opinions, views and critiques from fellow professionals and academics separated by time and distance. Most importantly, it represents the only permanent record of scientific work that has been completed.Scientific writing encompasses a whole range of forms, including theses, books, book chapters, grant applications, course syllabi, proffered abstracts, and journal articles. For the medical community, publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals that are indexed in a major database such as PubMed  carries the highest weight, as accepted manuscripts are peer-reviewed and widely accessible internationally.For doctors, and specifically radiologists, the benefits of scientific writing can be grouped into the following headings:CareerProfessionalInstitutionalPracticalRadiologist-specificThe most compelling reason for many doctors to start writing is to fulfil specific job requirements by employers . These include initial appointment to an academic position, renewal or confirmation of that appointment, promotion to a higher level appointment, and granting of tenure. In some public hospitals in Singapore, having publications in a recognised journal is a requirement for appointment as a consultant. Other career benefits include professional accreditation, continuing medical education (CME) accreditation, and application for membership in prestigious learned societies. In Singapore, where obtaining a minimum number of CME points over a two-year cycle is compulsory for renewal of a doctor’s practising certificate, the Singapore Medical Council awards CME points for successful publication.Publications can be regarded as an international currency that transcends political borders. For young doctors, having published articles in internationally reputable journals are a great help when applying for positions in foreign institutions and for overseas fellowships. For more established doctors, publications enable them to gain recognition and acknowledgement as experts in a particular field at national and international levels. Invitations to lecture at scientific meetings and refresher courses, and appointments as consultants to external agencies, expert panels and advisory boards, and to reviewer and editorial boards, are among the benefits of this enhanced professional reputation.Having topic-focused publications is also regarded as attainment of a certain standard of scholarly endeavour by several prestigious invitation-only international learned societies. From the academic point of view, writing and getting published improves one’s prospects of being successful in applications for research funding, extension of funding, and to obtain further funding. Grant-awarding bodies usually closely examine the publication track record of the applying investigators, when considering dispensation of funds.The discipline imposed by scientific study, research and writing increases the depth of knowledge in the subject being investigated. This knowledge sharpens clinical skills and facilitates teaching of students and postgraduates. Through scientific writing and publication, the author achieves expertise and eventually becomes acknowledged as an authority by academic peers in similar fields of endeavour.Publication in peer-reviewed journals is arguably the most important means to get international recognition for an individual, department, hospital, and university. The author’s country, and even the region, may also derive benefit from published work, particularly if it is on a topic of major importance. Besides educating peers locally and regionally, publications on subjects of relevance or common interest also serve as a conduit to establish links with other centres, with potential for clinical referral, training and research opportunities.Many government bodies and academic institutions use publications as a measure of academic productivity. Published papers not only contribute to an institution’s academic prestige and standing; for individual academic cost centres and departments, they may be linked to, and have a critical influence on, the annual budget allocation.The most important practical reason for knowing how to write is probably the benefit derived from the inherent training to be discriminatory and critical during the process of manuscript preparation. Scientific writing entails the discipline of performing a complete literature search, gathering and analysing data, and writing and revising numerous versions of a manuscript. Following the satisfaction of having their own manuscripts accepted, authors will be better positioned to appreciate what is written in journals and other scientific publications. If asked to act as a journal manuscript reviewer, it is strongly recommended that all doctors should accept the invitation to undertake this valuable learning process.With the huge amount of information now available in so many journals and other print material, it is vital for all professionals and academics to be able to judge the quality and reliability of published work. If one has published and appreciates the writing, reviewing and editing process, then one will be better able to read articles with the correct scientific and critical technique, and assess them for their true worth. Being able to provide a critical evaluation and learned judgement of what is written are skills that will produce a better clinical doctor. After all, medical practice is a knowledge-based profession. Patients always want to be seen by the most knowledgeable and up-to-date doctor.Diagnostic radiology is rapidly evolving. To be able to provide the best imaging service to patients, radiologists have to be constantly up-to-date and able to influence clinicians. Most clinicians do not have in-depth knowledge of, or formal training in, imaging and interventional radiology techniques, but they may be compelled to move into the radiologist’s turf, if radiologists are not providing the service to their requirements and satisfaction. The reality of radiology clinical practice is that effective communication is required. Unlike most of our clinical colleagues, our ’clients’ are not laypersons but highly-qualified doctors, usually specialists and sub-specialists. Radiologists are often referred to as the ’doctor’s doctors’, and must therefore strive to live up to this moniker.For radiologists, scientific writing is important in different phases of a radiological career. In the initial four-to-six year training period, the importance of written communication is recognised by its incorporation into the examination and accreditation system. Most radiology examinations include a written component where the candidate has to write quickly and succinctly within a short period of time. This usually takes the form of a film reporting session. Many professional Masters in Radiology courses have a mini-thesis component, incorporating all the elements of basic research techniques and manuscript preparation. Many awarding bodies have a requirement for publication(s) as part of the exit assessment or examination.Obtaining the exit radiological qualification and passing the various examinations may be considered a licence to continue the life-long learning process unsupervised. Written communication is an integral part of daily radiology practice. Radiologists are judged by their reports, in terms of style, accuracy and completeness. The reports should be of practical usefulness, contributing to the diagnosis and management of patients. As the radiology reports may also be read by peers from other institutions, including foreign ones, they should be clear, concise and written in a universally-understood format. Being proficient in scientific writing is therefore a necessity if one aims to be a competent international-standard radiologist.Writing is the most important means for communicating scientific work. Research and publication complement teaching and training, clinical service and patient care. There are many reasons for writing, one of the most important of which is the inherent training undertaken to better appreciate and evaluate the published work of others. Effective scientific writing is an important component of a radiologist’s practice. Trainees should be encouraged to start early, and senior members of our profession should act as role models and provide support.


Editors in developing Third World countries having financial and human resource constraints coupled with lack of good quality reviewers are faced with enormous problems, in fact it has become a very stressful and frustrating job. 2.3,4 Editors are also supposed to do their best and play their role in improving standard and quality of their journals despite all these difficulties and problems, trying to get best out of each and every member of the Editorial Board, which of course is not an easy task. 5With authors under pressure to publish, increasing scientific misconduct, authorship issues We in Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences have been trying to increase visibility of the journal to attract more authors and increase in readership from countries in Asia-Pacific Region in particular. We follow an author friendly policy, try to help and guide the authors to improve their manuscripts sometimes re-writing a significant portion of their manuscripts, improving English language and Grammar where needed. However, at times some of the submissions are “dead on arrival” hence such authors cannot be helped. Even then we do try to point out the major shortcomings, deficiencies as we believe the job of an Editor is of a Mentor rather than imposing punishments.6-8 to look at our strength and weaknesses which helps us to think and implement intervention strategies to overcome our shortcomings and plan for future. A careful look at the Year 2012 shows that the number of submissions continued to increase from 931 in the Year 2011 to 1023 in 2012. There has been significant increase in submissions from countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Turkey which also shows the pace of research in these countries.  number for all the manuscripts which are published in the journal, arrange generation of XML files of the manuscripts’ so that its full text availability on PubMed Central could be ensured. Earlier Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences was approved by PubMed Central for inclusion but we could not arrange the XML files for which now arrangements are being made. Hopefully if all goes well, all the above objectives will be achieved during the current year and then efforts will be made to get it indexed in Medline as well.10 They often try to convince the editors that they already have many papers to their credit published in very high Impact Factor journals; hence they would try their best to pressurize the editors to accommodate them. They need to be informed that peer review takes some time and there is no short cut.10 At the same time authors digging up old study and republishing it with some new outcome “terrible research” and those following their own earlier experiments, plan to publish putting a new substance is “pointless research” all of which does not need to be published. We practice Open Peer Review policy. During 2012 there were two instances when the manuscripts submitted by two PhD scholars were sent for review, the reviewers said that despite the fact that names of some medical heavy weights were included as authors, the studies suffered from many important flaws and asked for further guidance. They were assured to ignore the names of heavy weights and go ahead with the peer review and point out the deficiencies, give suggestions as to how the manuscripts can be improved further. This encouraged the Reviewers, who then did a commendable job; their comments were conveyed to the authors who revised their manuscripts which were eventually accepted for publication. The duties and responsibilities of Editors are just not to reject the papers but also help and guide the reviewers to perform their duties keeping up the professional ethics. Actually what happens is that most of these big names including institution heads, who act as Supervisors are too busy, they seldom have time to guide these researchers but at the same time are also keen to have their names included as authors. The Editors have to be careful of these “show-pieces” and follow publication ethics which of course can have its own repercussions. But even then the Editors are supposed to have no mercy for “chronic offenders” who indulge in scientific misconduct. At the same time there is no need to help the authors which are keen to see their publications in print the very next day. We received Impact Factor a few years ago and at present it is 0.161 for 2012. IF is considered one of the important (but not the only one) measures to judge the quality and standard of a journal though at times it is too much over emphasized. It has its own limitations and drawbacks. Though we have had a successive increase in citations from Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences over the year’s i.e. 198 in 2009, 275 in 2010 and 283 in 2011 but our Impact Factor decreased from 0.203 in 2009 to 0.161 in 2012 simply because we published more articles. This declining Impact Factor, one must admit, has been one of the factors in rejection of a large number of submissions because we do not want our Impact Factor to decrease further, though the number of submissions has also increased every year. Playing this Impact Facto game is a very tricky business but we do not wish to be harsh with the authors and would continue to follow the author friendly policy with the objective of promoting research culture in the country and the region. On the whole we feel satisfied at our performance in the preceding year and pledge to utilize all possible resources, opportunities to improve the quality of manuscripts’ accepted for publication thereby raising the standard of the Journal.


Genes have been in the scientific vocabulary for a hundred years. The term "gene" was proposed by the Danish plant scientist Wilhelm Johannsen in the first decade of the 20th century. For Johannsen, the gene remained an abstract concept, "free of any hypothesis" , but othGenes are so embedded in our intellectual DNA (to repatriate a fashionable idiom) that we tend to forget that we still have no agreed definition of the term . When weGenes is. Genes is a new Open Access, online-only journal covering all gene-related biology: genes, genetics and genomics, and the science that they enable. We may not know exactly what "genes" are, but I can tell you what A list of some relevant keywords will give you a flavour of the scope: DNA; RNA; chromosomes; reproduction; heredity; genealogy; interaction of multiple genes; genetic code; pseudogene; gene structure; gene expression; recombination and linkage; genetic mapping; inheritance; nature versus nurture; gene regulation; genetic change; population genetics; conservation genetics; phylogenomics; phylogenetics; cloning; genetically modified organisms; human genetics; comparative genomics; behavioural genetics; medical genetics; gene therapy; genome projects; personal genomics; copy number variation; public health genomics; genetic diversity; transcriptional profiling; microRNA analysis; mRNA analysis; analysis of noncoding and other RNAs. Genes is to reduce delays to a minimum and to provide a good experience for authors and readers alike. That is why Genes is an Open Access, online-only journal managed by a professional office in Switzerland. Why do we need a new journal in the area of genetics and genomics? It is true that there are many established journals that cover this field, but the field itself is expanding. The result is that good quality journals are receiving increasing numbers of submissions, resulting in slow processing times for reviewing and publication and a lottery in which perfectly sound papers can eventually be rejected. When you need the publication for your final report, degree, promotion or next grant application, such uncertainty can be stressful. Our aim for Genes before the end of 2010, so there is every incentive to submit your papers soon.The advantage of Open Access is that everyone with internet access can read the articles at no cost – not just those at institutions that can afford the subscription. This increases the number of people who read and cite the work. Of course, nothing is free in this life, so the cost of publication is borne by the authors. The publication charges of MDPI journals are relatively modest, though, compared to many other Open Access journals, and certainly compared to the costs of carrying out the research. Even better, publication charges will be waived for all articles that are submitted to Genes is a peer-reviewed publication: all manuscripts are evaluated by independent anonymous referees in the usual way, but we will ensure that this is done as speedily as possible. Once a manuscript is accepted, it can be prepared for on-line publication much faster than for a print journal. Furthermore, there is no need to wait until an "issue" is complete, so each article will be published as soon as it is ready. The result is that work gets published faster and cited sooner. A further advantage of online publication is that there is effectively no space limitation. There is no need to reject good papers because the journal is "full", and every reason to make available all the relevant data to support a study's findings.The first advantage of an online-only journal is speed of publication. Genes will command respect and be worthy of attention. Though we aim to be rapid, the peer review standards will be as high as we have come to expect in this field. This journal is run by geneticists for geneticists. We are fortunate to have the backing of MDPI, an organisation with more than a decade of experience in online, Open Access science publishing, and dedicated editorial office staff who have a science background. I am happy to be supported in this venture by a strong Editorial Board of active scientists who cover the wide remit of the journal. It is their expertise and judgment that will ensure that the articles published in Genes publishes reviews, research articles, communications and technical notes. In addition, manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas will be particularly welcomed. Special Issues are organised around a defined theme; they will often be edited by a member of the Editorial Board, but we welcome proposals from the whole genetics community. For example, a Special Issue may be devoted to selected papers presented at a relevant conference. Articles do not have to be in a Special Issue, however: independent submissions are welcome at any time, and accepted papers will be published as soon as they are ready.Genes with good manuscripts. If you have work to publish, why not try us? It is free until the end of 2010.We aim to provide a rapid and hassle-free publication route for authors, so that they will continue to come back to


Although the same is true of many journals, particularly those run by scientific societies, eLife has introduced a number of innovations into the peer review process to ensure that editorial judgments are made in a way that is both decisive and fair to authors, and also more transparent than at most journals. We believe that these innovations—combined with our commitment to open access and to fully exploiting the potential offered by digital media , which contains at least one expert in the areas of science that eLife aims to cover. As with most journals, authors are asked during the submission stage to identify the most appropriate editors to handle their manuscripts, and to propose suitable referees, and they are also given the opportunity to request that certain editors and referees are excluded from the process.When a paper is submitted to broad set of criteria, a full submission is encouraged and a reviewing editor is appointed from the BRE or from the senior editors. This reviewing editor acts as a referee, selects one or more additional referees and oversees the peer review process. About 43% of initial submissions make it through this initial stage, and the median time from receipt to initial decision is about three days.If the work is judged to represent a significant achievement using a eLife is that referees are directed to limit their recommendations to changes that bear directly on the major conclusions of the work. As it states on our web site:We will only request new work, such as experiments, analyses, or data collection, if the data are essential to support the major conclusions.The authors must be able to do any new work in a reasonable time frame. If the conclusions are not adequately supported by the existing data, the submission should be rejected.Any requests for new work must fall within the scope of the current submission and the technical expertise of the authors.An important element of the peer review process at eLife really kicks in once all the reviews have been received: the reviewing editor initiates an online consultation session in which each referee can see who the other referees are and what they wrote about the manuscript. Over the course of several days, the referees exchange views on the merits of the work. If the consensus is that the manuscript should be rejected—and about 40% of the manuscripts that have reached this stage to date have been rejected—the reviews are usually conveyed to the authors in full.The new approach being taken by eLife, but requires additional experiments or analysis, the referees work with each other to identify the additional studies that are required for acceptance. The reviewing editor then drafts a decision letter that explains these essential revisions; we prefer that these core comments are summarized in at most 1000 words. If it is agreed during the consultation session that some of the referees’ concerns do not affect the validity or overall conclusions of the manuscript, then these concerns are not included in the decision letter.  All decisions, either favourable or unfavourable, are reviewed and approved by the Editor-in-Chief or one of the two Deputy Editors, plus one other senior editor. The end result is that the authors have a clear directive from the editors—a roadmap that, if navigated successfully, will virtually guarantee acceptance. Although the consultation among the referees adds some time to the decision process, the median time from receiving the full submission to the decision after peer review is currently running at 27 days.If, on the other hand, the consensus is that the manuscript is, in principle, acceptable for publication in The end result is that the authors have a clear directive from the editors—a roadmap that, if navigated successfully, will virtually guarantee acceptance.When the revised manuscript is received, the reviewing editor can usually make an executive decision on whether or not the authors have addressed the major concerns conveyed in the decision letter in a satisfactory manner. This is one of the reasons why the median time from receiving the full submission to acceptance is presently less than 80 days. Finally, subject to approval by the authors, the decision letter after peer review and the author response to this decision letter are included in the HTML version of the article as part of our efforts to make the peer review process more transparent.eLife approach to peer review requires a significant commitment to the journal from researchers who already have many calls on their time. The editors are therefore financially remunerated in recognition of the work that they are putting into the journal.The responses of referees, authors and editors to this approach have been almost universally enthusiastic. Referees, in particular, have found the consultation session to be engaging and an improvement on the conventional approach in which reviews are cast into an electronic void and the referee often remains oblivious to the fate of the paper, and rarely learns who the other referees were. And, surprisingly perhaps, several authors of papers that were not accepted after initial or full review have told us that, despite their disappointment, they found the whole process of peer review—and, in some cases, rebuttal—to be fair and, in general, fast. It will be clear to readers that the As with any new process, some concerns were raised about our consultation stage, particularly the identification of referees to one another. Would a junior investigator feel reluctant to challenge the views of an established expert? Could we assure the confidentiality of the process? And what would happen in the event that a consensus could not be reached? To date, these issues have not presented a problem. Young scholars who have served as referees have not been reluctant to express contrary views, referees have maintained confidentiality (where desired) and, remarkably, a consensus has always been reached .eLife grows, the capacity of our editors and our procedures will be challenged. It is already obvious, however, that our fresh approach to editorial decision making is working well. And with other journals making similar innovations—and here we acknowledge the pioneering work of the British Medical Journal, EMBO Journal and some of the BMC journals in this regard—we are clearly entering a new era of fairer and more efficient peer review.As


AbstractInternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN).The paper describes the focus, scope and the rationale of PhytoKeys, a newly established, peer-reviewed, open-access journal in plant systematics. PhytoKeys is launched to respond to four main challenges of our time: (1) Appearance of electronic publications as amendments or even alternatives to paper publications; (2) Open Access (OA) as a new publishing model; (3) Linkage of electronic registers, indices and aggregators that summarize information on biological species through taxonomic names or their persistent identifiers ; (4) Web 2.0 technologies that permit the semantic markup of, and semantic enhancements to, published biological texts. The journal will pursue cutting-edge technologies in publication and dissemination of biodiversity information while strictly following the requirements of the current  PageBreakand dissemination means that taxonomists, publishers, and indexing and aggregation services have the chance to use these new tools to accelerate biodiversity research and understanding. Accompanying these changes has been the development of methods to increase the speed and efficiency of sampling of biological materials and discovery of new taxa, thanks to the development of new methods, especially the application of DNA sequencing to taxonomic work.Exciting and novel advances in the publishing and dissemination of taxonomic information are changing the field. The appearance of electronic media as conduits of scientific communication and the adaptation of the Internet as a medium of transmission The challenges are indeed daunting in scale. From the viewpoint of biodiversity publishing, these challenges could be summarized in four main groups: (1) Appearance of electronic publications as amendments or even alternatives to paper publications; (2) Open Access (OA) as a new publishing model; (3) Linkage of electronic registers, indices and aggregators that summarize information on biological species through taxonomic names or their persistent identifiers ; and (4) Web 2.0 technologies that permit the semantic markup of, and semantic enhancements to, published biological texts.http://www.phytokeys.com) builds on existing experience and innovations accumulated during the successful launch of its partner journal ZooKeys (http://www.zookeys.org). PhytoKeys aims to set new standards in taxonomic publishing and especially dissemination, in full compliance with the current International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN).In response to these publication challenges, we are here establishing a new journal in plant systematics, called PhytoKeys. PhytoKeys , and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, ICZN (Articles 8 and 9), currently do not allow strictly e-only publications of nomenclatural acts  to the general public or at least to botanical institutions with libraries accessible to botanists generally“ (Article 29). At the International Botanical Congress in Vienna in 2005, Recommendation 29A laid out a preliminary set of ideas about the relationships between print and electronic versions of an article:PageBreakEffective publication under the ICBN is currently defined ““Publication of nomenclatural novelties in periodicals ....... that distribute an electronic version as well as a printed version, should only be in those with the following features:The printed and electronic versions are identical in content and pagination;The electronic version is in a platform-independent and printable format;The electronic version is publicly available via the World Wide Web or its successors;The presence of nomenclatural novelties is prominently indicated in the work ….”In our view, best practice for any journal currently publishing nomenclatural information electronically should consider the following criteria to ensure effective publication:Maintenance of a printed version registered under print ISSN (P-ISSN), different from the ISSN of the electronic version (E-ISSN);Production of the print version simultaneously with the electronic version;The printed version to be identical (including resolution and color) to the electronic  version;Maintenance of a stock of the printed version that may be requested and delivered on purchase, exchange or gift;Publication of the electronic version on the World Wide Web.Descriptions of new taxa are already being published in e-only journals and authors and publishers have carefully followed the current requirements of the Codes. New plant taxa published recently in an entirely electronic journal, PLoS One  accomplihttp://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm). The journal will be published simultaneously in online and print formats. The high-resolution, full-color print version is identical to the online PDF version. In addition, the entire content of the journal is published open access, free to anyone to download, archive, print and distribute.The policy of PhytoKeys regarding electronic publication is very clearly defined. We shall strictly follow the requirements of the current International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code), adopted by the Seventeenth International Botanical Congress Vienna, Austria, July 2005 (Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) used by PhytoKeys, authors retain the rights for their articles, which may however be copied, downloaded, and used for text- and data-mining purposes, provided that such uses are fully attributed to the author(s) and source of publication.PhytoKeys is established as an entirely open access journals and adheres strictly to the principles of free exchange of knowledge, which means a direct, barrier-free, online dissemination of scientific results at no charge to the reader  and locality data supplied to GBIF through the Integrated Publishers Toolkit (IPT) , Global Bidoidversity Information facility (GBIF), PubMedCentral, Wikispecies, Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Plazi, and many others). Furthermore, the published text can be “atomized” and disseminated in fragments associated with bibliographic metadata. For instance, taxon descriptions and associated discussions can be automatically supplied through the Species Profile Model (SPM) to EOL (it (IPT) .As a business model, open access (“author pays but everyone can read at no charge”) is often opposed to conventional publishing model (“publisher pays but everyone has to pay to read”) , 2007. PPageBreak retired scientists. In PhytoKeys, such authors will have the option of discounted fees or a complete waiver. Discounts or waivers will also be offered to scientists who actively participate in the review and editorial process. We hope with these incentives to give all botanists the opportunity to experience the pleasure and benefits derived from open access publishing.Unfortunately, some authors of worthy manuscripts may be constrained in their ability to pay open access fees, e.g., students, scientists from developing countries, orAlthough open access is not yet entirely accepted in taxonomy publishing due to several constraints , its valScientific publishing for over 500 years has developed around two basic models: (i) the large scientific monograph and (ii) the scientific article within a periodical . Both models have traditionally been seen as producing “indivisible” entities of published information, identified, described and cited through their bibliographic descriptions . Division, separation and analysis of the body texts of scientific publications have been possible only through reading on paper by humans.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SemanticWeb), have stimulated the development of radically new models of publication, dissemination, reading and analysis of scientific content. These innovations have occurred with unprecedented speed and scale, and have already visibly impacted taxonomic publishing . PMT provides highly automated, fine granularity mark up, for example, denoting each separate taxon treatment within a paper, or tagging of all taxon names, literature references, gene sequences, etc. The final XML outputof the paper is validated against the National Library of Medicine (NLM) document type definition (DTD) and could be archived in PubMedCentral upon approval of the latter. The taxon treatments (including descriptions of new taxa) are exported through XML to Encyclopedia of Life (EOL), Plazi and other interested aggregators of information. The PDF file of a paper will be identical to the printed version and will be stored for browsing or searching through the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL). Papers will also be published as semantically enhanced HTMLs, allowing interactive reading and use by methods such as: (i) visualisation of main tag elements within the text ; (ii) internal cross-linking between paper sections, citations, references, tables, and figures; (iii) mapping of localities listed in the whole paper or within separate taxon treatments; (v) autotagging of taxon names, with dynamic links to a wider array of large international biodiversity databases through the Pensoft Taxon Profile (PTP) (see next section for details), (vi) autotagging of GenBank and Barcode of Life Database (BOLD) accession numbers and linking to NCBI and BOLD, respectively; (vii) linking of taxon names to relevant references in PubMed, Google Scholar, Biodiversity Heritage Library, and other databases.PhytoKeys uses the Pensoft Mark Up Tool (PMT) as the basic software tool for XML mark up implemented within the editorial process. PMT is based on the TaxPub XML schema, an extension to the Document Type Definitions (DTD) of the US National Library of Medicine Journal Archiving and Interchange Tag Suite :Data can be integrated with other dataset across space, time and taxonomic groups, bringing in this way recognition and new opportunities for collaboration to the authors;PageBreakCollection managers can trace usage and citations of digitized data from their collections;By publishing data, authors and institutions are credited for their work to create and maintain datasets through:Registering of priority and authorship in a conventional journal publication;Indexing, discovery and citation in the same way as a standard research paper, to benefit authors in recognition and career building;Datasets, metadata and respective data papers are inter-linked to expedite and mutually extend the dissemination, to the benefit of the authors and society.PhytoKeys will support various methods for data publication. For instance, occurrence data sets can be published as downloadable files under a separate DOI number linked to the respective paper such as a taxonomic revision or floristic catalogue .A special feature of PhytoKeys will be the opportunity to publish data papers for datasets already uploaded and indexed by the authors to GBIF. Such data papers can be automatically extracted from the GBIF metadata catalogue, generated in a form of XML-tagged manuscripts through the GBIF’s Integrated Publishers Toolkit (IPT) and then submitted to PhytoKeys for regular review and editorial processing , a web-based harvester thatPageBreak automatically links any taxon name mentioned within a text to external sources and creates a dynamic web page for that taxon. PTP saves readers a great amount of time and effort by gathering for them the relevant information on a taxon from leading biodiversity sources in real time   high-resolution, full-colour print version (2) PDF identical to the printed version; (3) HTML to provide links to external resources and semantic enhancements to published texts for interactive reading, and (4) XML version for archiving in PubMedCentral thus providing a machine-readable copy of the content to facilitate future data mining;GBIF, EOL, IPNI, etc.), as well as linking references to the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) and other bibliographic sources, gene sequences to Genbank and so on;Continuous development and implementation of cutting-edge publishing technologies: XML-based editorial work flow and mark up process, data publication and various semantic Web 2.0 enhancements, such as linking of all taxon names to external sources  within a few days of publication;Submission of all new taxa to the International Plant Name Index (PTP) tool;Automatically generated dynamic web pages for all taxonomic names mentioned within a publication, by linkout to a wide array of leading biodiversity sites, through the Pensoft Taxon Profile ;Data section providing automated generation and mark up of manuscripts from the metadata catalogue of the Global Biodiversity Information Facilities ;Immediate distribution and dissemination of your publication to scientific databases, indices and search engines  archives and libraries, in the first case One of the highest priority objectives of PhytoKeys will be quick coverage by ISI Web of Science and the assignment of an impact factor by the end of the second year of existence. The accumulated experience with ZooKeys gives us confidence that this goal is definitely achievable.PhytoKeys will consider for publicationworks in taxonomy, systematics, biogeography, evolution, and phylogeny in the widest possible sense. Examples of such papers are new descriptions of taxa, if they are accompanied by proper diagnoses, keys and/or distinction from at least the related or similar species; taxonomic revisions of extant (or ‚‘recent”) and fossil plant groups; checklists and catalogues; phylogenetic and evolutionary analyses; plant DNA barcode analyses; papers in descriptive and/or historical biogeography; methodology papers; data mining and literature surveys; monographs, conspectus, and atlases; collections of papers, Festschrift volumes, and conference proceedings.Ecological papers will be considered if they treat specific taxa or as part of special issues on a certain topic, region or taxon.The following categories of papers will also be considered for publishing: original research articles; reviews as longer articles offering a comprehensive overview, historical analysis or/and future perspectives of a topic; monographs and collections of papers with no limit in size, published as “special issues”; data papers; short communications; letters and discussion papers; book reviews.Authors and editors publishing large revisions or surveys, collection of papers, conference proceedings, Festschrift volumes, checklists, catalogues, etc. will benefit from being assigned ISBN numbers to their works, providing in this way additional dissemination and promotion through the book industry framework.We are convinced that PhytoKeys will establish a new model of publishing and dissemination of information in botany taking advantage of the exciting possibilities in the application of the semantic Web. New technologies implemented in PhytoKeys will permit taxonomists, ecologists, conservationists and any reader anywhere to harvest within seconds the most essential information on a taxon, locality, or even a specimen, such as descriptions, images, maps, keys, gene sequences and references. A significant impediment to the acceleration of knowledge about the diversity of our planet is access to all the information accumulated during the long history of scientific discoveries; information published in PhytoKeys will be free and open access for anyone to read and use. We are committed to enhancing access to and speeding up the dissemination of taxonomic knowledge, and all efforts of PhytoKeys will be directed to advance knowledge about plant life on Earth.


This editorial shares the questions that IJCP is, at the time of this publication, asking research authors about ‘open access’. It aims to prompt discussion about open access, and explains some of the challenges that switching to open access presents to a general and internal medicine journal like IJCP. It invites you to share your insights, using the approaches described below. It explains how you will be able to read the results of our research.Open access publishing has changed, perhaps forever, the way readers access articles in some high-quality, peer-reviewed journals.The benefits to authors are derived from removing the ‘pay to read’ barriers that traditionally sit between published articles and the readers who want to read them. Arguably this gives greater exposure for authors’ work. Replacing traditional copyright attribution with Creative Commons-based licensing – another component of publishing open access – means that authors’ work is arguably more straightforward to re-use [for example, The cost to authors, though, is real. Whereas there are frequently no publication costs for authors who publish in traditional subscription journals, publishing in open access journals commonly involves a mandatory publication fee. Sometimes, this fee is paid by research funding bodies (some of which make unrestricted access a condition of their funding), such as Wellcome Trust, US National Institutes of Health, UK Medical Research Council and some corporations, including pharmaceutical companies. Other times authors pay from their own pockets.The cost to publishers is also real. The open access model means that publishers can no longer collect the subscription revenues that traditionally sustain their journals and may mean that they instead switch to reliance on authors paying.Equally critical, publishers who make the switch from a subscription to an open access approach run the serious risk of alienating their authors, who may not believe that the benefits of open access outweigh the costs, and who instead take their articles to different journals, which continue with the traditional approach.Some journals, like IJCP, continue to offer authors a hybrid option: open access for individual articles within a journal where all other articles are available via subscription. This approach was developed to explore the possible transition between models, from subscription to open access. While showing some signs of success, the hybrid approach is (and may remain) suboptimal for some research funders, and the spectre of ‘double dipping’ raises its head .At the time of this publication, and for another 6 months, we will ask all authors who submit papers to IJCP to answer two questions about open access . The ansThen, using these answers, the IJCP team will consider whether or not IJCP should become an open access journal. If we decide to take this course, IJCP would start requiring payment of open access fees from authors for every article we agree to publish, although we would have a fee-waiver option for certain cases. We would no longer collect subscription revenues for the articles we publish online and these articles would become free to read by anyone. We would calculate our open access publication fee in such a way as to replace our current subscription revenue.Twitter:@ijcpeditors. And we will also be happy to receive communications by email.We wrote this editorial to explain our approach, and to extend discussion to a wider audience beyond those authors who happen to submit to IJCP in the next 6 months. We encourage you to share your thoughts and join the debate, by submitting to IJCP a ‘Letter to the Editor’  explaining what you think about open access, and/or the traditional subscription model, and why. We will review all letters, as is normal, and publish in the journal those that add insight. We also encourage those readers who are Twitterers to discuss open access with us on By answering our questions or by joining in the conversation, you will be taking part in an interesting and highly topical debate , as well as playing an active role in helping decide how IJCP approaches open access in the future. We will aggregate and analyse the responses that we receive from authors , and wilCG is employed by John Wiley & Sons, and as such benefits from the success of the company’s publishing programme. CG publishes clinical and research journals including a number for Societies and Royal Colleges in Australia and New Zealand, the International Journal of Clinical Practice, the global Wiley open access journals in health sciences, is the treasurer of the Committee on Publication Ethics (a UK registered charity), and leads the Wiley-Blackwell publication ethics programme.


I am pleased and honored to introduce MicrobiologyOpen, a new journal from Wiley-Blackwell. Wiley-Blackwell already publishes an impressive portfolio of microbiology journals, a number of them for leading societies, including some of the most read and most cited journals serving the discipline. These journals are highly regarded among microbiologists. Why then a new journal? The term “open” has two meanings: first, MicrobiologyOpen is an open access journal, but, more importantly, it also means that it is open to all aspects of microbiology. The leading journals in the Wiley-Blackwell microbiology portfolio target specific microbiology audiences; MicrobiologyOpen launches specifically to serve the broad microbiology community.Microbiology has changed dramatically during the last 10 years and has undergone very exciting developments in this postgenomic era. The massive quantity of genomic and metagenomic information that is now available raises many questions and opens new perspectives. We should not forget that many genes code for proteins of unknown function and it is a challenge for scientists in the field to determine what these proteins do by combining different approaches, including genetics, biochemistry, physiology, proteomics, metabolomics, to cite only a few. MicrobiologyOpen is a response to the growth of research being undertaken and the data now available. It is clear that the community will benefit from the increased flexibility provided by the online only, open access format, since neither the authors’ voices nor the journal's development will be curtailed by length restrictions or page budgets.Manuscripts dealing with all types of microorganisms  will be welcome, and virology is certainly not forgotten, since the journal will publish articles dealing with bacterial and archaeal phages as well as papers on viruses infecting eukaryotic microorganisms. Being a consciously interdisciplinary journal, MicrobiologyOpen encourages and will consider equally papers dealing with fundamental aspects and with applied research.The journal welcomes direct submissions that further our understanding of microbial interactions and microbial processes. We have an editorial board of excellent scientists with different and complementary expertise, and we are conscious of the need to maintain a high scientific standard. Together we aim at reaching a level of excellence for MicrobiologyOpen, which means that only manuscripts of high scientific interest and value will be accepted. All submissions will be subject to stringent but swift peer review by at least two referees chosen among the members of the Editorial Board and/or by independent external experts. MicrobiologyOpen also collaborates with other journals published by Wiley-Blackwell, including society-owned journals, in order to offer authors of high-quality work that these leading journals are unable to publish an opportunity to transfer their manuscripts along with the original reviews for consideration by MicrobiologyOpen.We aim at a rigorous, fair, and rapid processing of the manuscripts submitted to MicrobiologyOpen, which means that the authors will get a decision within a few weeks of submission. In addition, the journal will utilize an XML editing tool to provide fast turnaround to proofs and handle author corrections quickly, with the result that the time between acceptance and publication will also be considerably shortened.I would like to thank the scientists who accepted with enthusiasm to become members of the editorial board of the journal. To become the first Editor-in-Chief of this new journal is certainly an enormous challenge for me and equally for the members of the Editorial Board. We will together do our best to make MicrobiologyOpen one of the most respected journals in microbiology.


Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), is one such article resulting in considerable discourse  are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology” (FCT 2013). The Editor-in-Chief also was very clear that he “found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data.”The environmental health literature is rife with controversial papers that evoke criticism, support, and, most importantly, a desire to better understand the findings put forth by the authors. A research article by Séralini and colleagues , publishThis article  has beenFCT and published accordingly. Hence, it initially met the threshold for publication. In our opinion, there must be a different threshold for forced retraction of the paper, and we believe that this paper did not reach that threshold. The COPE guidelines for retracting articles (The paper was peer reviewed by scientists on behalf of the articles  provide The nature of science is such that individual studies are rarely, if ever, conclusive. Numerous published studies have later been found to be deeply flawed through further scientific investigation, as may well be the study by Séralini et al. To our knowledge, there is no precedent for “inconclusive data” being a reason for retraction for Elsevier or other publishers, or elsewhere in the scientific literature. To single out this one study for retraction is almost certainly due to the controversy following its publication. The repercussions of this directed action extend well beyond this single publication and raise several larger scientific questions. Will these data, which could well have been accepted by another journal, now be tainted beyond possibility for inclusion in usual weight-of-evidence reviews of the body of peer-reviewed science? Will the response to new science by interested parties now be focused on dueling attempts to have the paper retracted rather than on performing additional studies to replicate or refute the findings? Does this retraction strengthen the scientific process, or does it confuse scientific discourse with public relations?FCT marks a significant and destructive shift in management of the publication of controversial scientific research. Equally troublesome is that this retraction does not really impact how the science will be viewed by scientists, but only how it is viewed by others outside of the scientific community. We feel the decision to retract a published scientific work by an editor, against the desires of the authors, because it is “inconclusive” based on a post hoc analysis represents a dangerous erosion of the underpinnings of the peer-review process, and Elsevier should carefully reconsider this decision.Efforts to suppress scientific findings, or the appearance of such, erode the scientific integrity upon which the public trust relies. The retraction by the


At the time we wrote: “But it is at the eLife journal website where we will have the most scope to experiment and explore new territory in research communication” , plus a variety of other content. Going forward, all new content will be published on the eLife journal website as well as at PMC .The first papers to be accepted by ication” . The eLieLife has its origins in a conversation between the leaders of the Wellcome Trust, the Max Planck Society and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), who all felt it was time for funding agencies and scientists to work together to take a leading role in the publication of research results, and to break down the pay walls that restricted access to these results. As a result of these discussions, eLife has been founded on three basic principles: the results of scientific research should be freely available to everyone, to read and to use; decisions about the fate of submitted papers should be fair, constructive, and provided in a timely manner; and the presentation of new research findings needs to take full advantage of all the possibilities offered by digital media and platforms.Although open access has received a great deal of attention, and a degree of acceptance by some subscription publishers, only about 10% of the biomedical literature is published in this format. Moreover, authors have few options if they want to publish a paper under an open-access licence in a highly selective journal. This is one of the reasons why the Wellcome Trust, the Max Planck Society and HHMI decided to fund a highly-selective, open-access journal to publish outstanding papers in the life and biomedical sciences, irrespective of their funding source.eLife opened for submissions several months ago and the response has been most encouraging, with authors, editors and referees all embracing our fresh approach to the review process. This process starts with Senior Editors, often in consultation with specialists on our Board of Reviewing Editors (BRE), making the initial decision—within a few days—as to whether a manuscript will be sent out for full review. If a manuscript is considered a potentially important contribution, a member of the BRE is asked to serve as the reviewing editor and to select one or two additional referees. After the referee reports are returned, the reviewing editor and the referees confer in an online consultation session to decide if the manuscript represents a significant advance in the field and if it meets our high standards of technical excellence. If the decision is favourable, the authors receive a decision letter listing the points that need to be addressed in the revised version of the paper: authors are not sent all the referee reports in their entirety and do not, therefore, have to respond to redundant or conflicting comments in the reports. If the reviewing editor and referees find the work is too limited or technically too weak to be revised without major additional work, the paper is rejected.eLife. The reviewing editor, having served as a referee and conferred with the other referee(s) on the decision letter, is then in a position to make a decision to accept—or not—a revised paper, generally without having to consult the referee(s) again. This streamlined process, which depends crucially on the participation of active scientists in all aspects of the review and editorial process, reduces the time it takes to make a final decision.We find this consultation session greatly facilitates the decision process and allows the reviewing editor to provide the authors with a decision letter that contains a clear, coherent statement of what is required to publish the work in eLife papers are quickly processed and published in both HTML and PDF formats. Each article has an eLife digest that explains the work, and its background, to a general readership, and selected articles are accompanied by an Insight article written by an expert in the field (sometimes the reviewing editor or one of the referees). In the PDF version of the research articles, we have adopted a somewhat unusual one-column format, which we feel makes the article easier to read on screens and, in particular, on portable devices. Each element in the article  has its own digital object identifier (DOI), which allows the elements to be cited (or linked to) directly, and will help readers to search for specific information within an article. And if the authors agree, the HTML version includes the initial decision letter and the authors' response to it.Once accepted, eLife is an online-only journal, there are no artificial limits on the number of pages, figures or references in research articles. As such we are able to link additional data to the primary text, to integrate videos and other rich media, and to associate extra figures with each primary figure, rather than locking away valuable additional information in a large file of supplementary or supporting information. Our intent is to improve the integrity of published work and to facilitate the use and re-use of the narrative and data by readers. To this end, we are also making article XML available via sites such as github and Fluidinfo, where researchers and programmers will be able to access and interact with eLife content in new and experimental ways. We will monitor the success of these and all other aspects of eLife , over the coming months as we continue to experiment and learn.Because eLife, our goal is to place science and scholars first. We are not in the business of selling magazines, so neither profits nor fashions drive our decisions. Furthermore, with the support of our funders, we are able to waive any publication charges for our first three years of operation. We hope you enjoy the new eLife website and these first articles, and we invite you to choose eLife as a preferred venue for the publication of your best work.At


Indian Journal of Ophthalmology (IJO). Contemporary paradigms are rooted in the past, as will future trends evolve from today’s mores. The strong foundation laid by all preceding editors made the present team’s task just a bit easier in lifting the IJO to a truly global stature.Rome was not built in a day and neither is the IJO. This metamorphosis was aptly depicted in the new cover layout. We retained a dash of Blue to symbolize continuity. The Vertical bar signified our steadfastness, while the dominant White was a sign of the pristine purity of our mindset toward our goals – promoting a scientific temper within the All India Opthalmological Society (AIOS) fraternity.Soon after it assumed office, the new editorial team conceived of an image makeover for the We also designed a new logo  to embodI j O over this matrix, with the j representing the central binding rib of our mission. The Red Bindi atop denotes the blessings of Ma Saraswati toward our noble endeavor.We positioned the letters IJO journey over the last 6 years that the present editorial team has been working.As we look back, we feel this is the opportune time to review the progressive advancement of the In the first editorial itself, The total number of issues published annually was increased from the previous four to six. The journal is now being published and delivered so regularly that the editorial office receives complaints of non-receipt even in the event of a delay by just 1 week!When we realized that the inability to pay for relevant articles was a handicap for some aspiring authors, the editorial office stepped in to provide full text of any article to members for research purposes.IJO. This has resulted in an enhanced visibility of our authors’ efforts from its inaugural issue in 1953 to time immemorial!Our mantra of “Open Access” became more meaningful by the act of locating, formatting and uploading the full text of all the back issues of the “Scientific Dignity” to our contributors by virtue of indexing the IJO by more than 30 indexing systems, the Science Citation Index and PubMed Central being some of the most prestigious of this orderly procedure of scientific classification of all known Ophthalmic Gyan [Impact Factor, as cited by the Journal Citation Report, to be around 1. This is, by any means, a commendable achievement for a new entrant.We added a large measure of mic Gyan . We statthe IJO crossed the threshold from print to pen. We launched a novel teaching module – the research methodology workshop. We conducted seven such workshops in the larger metros and, as they gained in popularity with over 150 attendees, today there is an increasing demand to hold them even in smaller cities and towns.In order to fulfill our declared objective of helping our members to conduct quality research and inculcate the art of proper scientific writing, we decided to initially focus upon getting their basics clear. For the first time in its history, IJO, we reduced the color processing charges levied to the authors from ‘10,500/- to ‘2000/- (up to six photographs) in the very first year and have not increased the charges ever since.Researchers and authors go hand in hand in improving the quality of any journal. To attract good researchers from India to the Management of Uveitis, Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor, Infective Keratitis, Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome, Manual Small Incision Cataract Surgery, and Glaucoma. CDs on Infective Keratitis, Glaucoma and Research Methodology were also distributed through IJO as an innovatively handy and far reaching educational tool. The content of the symposia and CDs were very useful and highly appreciated.With an aim to further classify educational data, the editorial team planned and published symposia on focused abstracts on diverse topics such as, Uveitis, Intraocular lenses (IOLs), Keratoconus, Keratoplasty procedures and Congenital Cataract. This has served to bring together a wide body of information from several sources into one single domain, thus furthering the ability of our members to seek relevant data and references.We commissioned a series of “Supplementary Issue on Glaucoma” that incorporates two Editorials with no less than 22 invited review articles from 18 major institutes across the globe! Being the first among several others planned , we are sure that this supplement will have both a historical and collector’s value too.Along with this issue, we are pleased to provide you, again for the first time, a non-sponsored IJO has evolved tremendously, and for the better, these past 6 years [No one can deny that the  6 years .IJO.Our submissions and subsequent procedures are cent percent online. A total of 189 articles were published in the year 2010. This is a record of sorts for the Buoyed by a bounty of submissions this year , we happThe turnaround time from submission to publication has been reduced from over 450 days in 2005 to just 23 weeks by 2010 Figs. .IJO has, over time, acquired a strong support of hundreds of national and international reviewers [Figs. The role of reviewers can never be undermined in elevating the standard of any journal. rs Figs.  and 8.IJO has not only willingly reduced its share of the AIOS funds, but also elevated its position to such heights that in the last 6 years, it has increased its surplus funds by more than 2500%.From being on a precarious financial perch, dependent significantly on AIOS funds in 2005 , the IJOWe have constantly endeavored to reduce costs, while improving the quality of output .We inherited a negative surplus. We bequeath a financially sound product, capable of self-sustenance!  Need we IJO has, over the past 72 months, carved out a special and unique space on the AIOS firmament.The The AIOS-IJO Awards in the year 2009, thus taking one more step toward appreciating our authors and providing a permanent recognition of their work [IJO their first choice for publication.We instituted eir work . We are IJO “E BOOK”, as we prefer to call it. It raises screen-based reading to a new level. Be that as it may, we note with dismay that computer penetration amongst our members stands at a woeful 44%.We are sure one and all will appreciate the innovative features on our website, particularly of the Thankfully or otherwise, the printed word is still with us and promises to stay for a long time to come.IJO is unlikely to face redundancy in the near future, thus reinforcing the belief that our conditioned learning reflexes still need a printed or written format.The print format of the IJO, would like to see IJO being published monthly with its “Impact Factor” amongst the top 10 Ophthalmology journals in the world. Many enthusiasts may label this target as a very modest expectation from the next team, but we believe in taking one step at a time so that we do not lose balance before taking the next leap.The present editorial team, as the co-runner in the success story of As we inevitably hand over charge to the next team, we look back with a sense of gratitude to all our stakeholders – contributors, reviewers, editorial assistants, editorial committee members, editorial board members, AIOS office bearers, managing editor, publisher, printer, and above all, you – the readers. Thank you one and all for scripting our success story so well, so agreeably.This is truly the saddest of times that the voyage has to end.It is also the best and most opportune time to hand over the baton.We look back at this wonderful journey with a sense of fulfillment and a dash of justifiable  pride, secure in the knowledge that our mantra will outlive us.Our Mantra is work, hardwork, teamwork, pleasure in work.