Free Daily Headlines :

  • COVID-19
  • Vaccine Info
  • Money
  • Politics
  • Education
  • Health
  • Justice
  • More
    • Environment
    • Economic Development
    • Gaming
    • Investigations
    • Social Services
    • TRANSPORTATION
  • Opinion
    • CT Viewpoints
    • CT Artpoints
DONATE
Reflecting Connecticut’s Reality.
    COVID-19
    Vaccine Info
    Money
    Politics
    Education
    Health
    Justice
    More
    Environment
    Economic Development
    Gaming
    Investigations
    Social Services
    TRANSPORTATION
    Opinion
    CT Viewpoints
    CT Artpoints

LET�S GET SOCIAL

Show your love for great stories and out standing journalism

At 200 years, fortress of medical research confronts the Information Age, Part II

  • by Neena Satija
  • April 18, 2012
  • View as "Clean Read" "Exit Clean Read"

Correction

 

A quote was wrongly attributed in an earlier version of this story, and the story has been corrected. Tom Easley, publisher and managing director of the NEJM, said the following when asked about an $88 million estimate of its profits that appeared in Boston Magazine in 2005: “It’s not off by a factor of 10.”

 

 

Part Two

During the past several decades, medical journals have come under fire for exerting too much control over scientific information.

A new generation of publishers and researchers are challenging the traditional model of highly selective journals that charge hefty subscription fees. Instead, they say, their priorities are to get research out to the public as quickly as possible — and to provide it for free. Some are even bypassing the journals altogether by posting preliminary results online.

“The physical, technological constraints that led to that model are now gone,” said Michael Eisen, who founded the nonprofit publisher Public Library of Science in 2001. The Internet and the demand for instant information, he said, means more scientific research should be easily available.

The New England Journal of Medicine’s current editor Dr. Jeffrey Drazen doesn’t see it that way. Sure, “information and the amount of information is growing,” he said in a recent interview. But he thinks the journal’s publishing model should largely remain the same.

“We’re still being very select about what we choose to publish. And I think that that’s the right thing to do,” Drazen said. “To go through, sift through mountains of information, to find things which we think are going to make a difference to clinicians, so it can make a difference in patients’ lives. That was the challenge of my forbears in 1812 (when the journal was founded) … and it’s my challenge now.”

Public Library of Science is perhaps one of the biggest challengers of the New England Journal’s publishing model. One of its eight journals, called PLOS One, accepts 65 percent of the 20,000 submissions it receives each year. That’s because it rates submissions based on the scientific validity of the research rather than the often-subjective measure of an article’s impact in a field.

The idea is to prevent good research from languishing in the editorial review process of several journals simply because it isn’t considered high-impact enough for a “top-tier” journal, said Eisen.

He gave the example of a gastroenterologist who does research on Crohn’s disease. The New England Journal might reject such a paper simply because it’s too specialized. So then it has to get submitted to a second journal, and maybe even a third.

“Look, this paper might not be important to every doctor, but if you’re a gastroenterologist who treats Crohn’s disease, this paper is really important,” Eisen said. “And that paper might not end up in the New England Journal; now it might end up in some gastroenterology journal, but there’s no reason for that paper to have to have been reviewed first by the New England Journal, and then by some other journal, and maybe by a third journal before it gets published.”

The New England Journal’s brand — as with any top-tier journal — lies in its extreme selectivity. It publishes about 5 percent of the 10,000 or so submissions it receives every year.

But the new “mega-journal” approach is growing. The 172-year-old British Medical Journal, for example, has created BMJ Open, which had an article acceptance rate of 58 percent in 2011.

The creators of PLOS also challenge traditional journals’ restricted access models by posting all material online for free. Eisen said such “open access” policies are more fair to the public, which funds most science and medical research anyway. A significant portion of research is funded by the National Institutes of Health, for example, which received nearly $32 billion in taxpayer money in the 2011 fiscal year.

Rather than charging for subscriptions, PLOS charges submitting authors $1,350 to $3,000 per accepted article, giving exceptions to those who can’t afford it. The publisher collected $12 million in such fees in 2010 and waived or discounted fees for 11 percent of submitters. PLOS turned its first profit that year, of $3 million.

NEJM editors say such a model would fail to support the intense editing and peer review of each article they publish.

“When you buy a journal, it’s not the physical thing,” Drazen said. “Rather, you’re paying the editors to sift through thousands of submissions and bring you the few hundred they think are important. We pay for a lot of stuff you never see.”

He added that the journal’s archives are free to the public online, and all research becomes available to everyone six months after it’s first published.

The NEJM won’t disclose its profits, but when asked if a Boston Magazine estimate of $88 million in 2005 was accurate, Tom Easley, publisher and managing director, said, “It’s not off by a factor of 10.”

The journal’s owner, the Massachusetts Medical Society, made $70 million in publishing revenue and $20 million in advertising revenue in 2009, according to its 990 tax form.

“I don’t begrudge them the right to make a profit on a product,” said Eisen. “It’s the fact that they have a subscription-based business that is so lucrative that makes them, in my mind, unwilling to do the right thing for science and for medicine.”

Despite the resistance of some top-tier journals to the open-access model, Eisen thinks scientific publishing is moving in that direction. Three major research funders — the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Max Planck Institute and the Wellcome Trust — recently announced their intentions to fund a new online journal known as eLife, which will be freely available to the public. Instead of relying on full-time editors, the journal has tapped well-known academic researchers to volunteer their time.

The international company Elsevier, which publishes more than 2,600 academic journals, has been boycotted by nearly 10,000 researchers — including dozens at Yale and the University of Connecticut — who say it  charges exorbitantly high subscription fees and prevents the free exchange of knowledge.

A move toward ‘open science’

But beyond calls for “open access,” another trend in the world of research may be even more of a threat to the New England Journal. It’s a movement known as “open science.” In such a model, scientists simply post the results of their research on websites as it’s in process, receiving instant feedback from their colleagues.

Ivan Oransky considers this movement the best reflection of how science works. Executive editor of Reuters Health, Oransky runs the blog EmbargoWatch, which examines how journals control the flow of scientific information.

“Science doesn’t work every week. It doesn’t happen in these punctuated episodes once a week or once a month when the journal comes out,” said Oransky. “We should stop fetishizing the scientific paper, because that’s what’s giving journals right now all their control and I think they’re holding onto that in a defensive way.”

Today, “open science” models are used only by a small subset of researchers, who are generally physicists. Most scientists can’t post their work in the public domain before submitting to a journal, or the journal won’t publish it. That idea was pioneered by the New England Journal’s editor Franz Ingelfinger in 1969, and it’s known as the “Ingelfinger” rule. Since then most major journals have adopted some form of it.

The Ingelfinger rule has been criticized by journalists and researchers who say they can’t discuss their work freely.

“People will show slides at a conference with data, but then if you go up afterwards and ask for a copy of them they’re reluctant to give it to you,” said Gideon Gil, health/science editor at the Boston Globe. “Our role is to tell the public what is happening of importance in medical research, and part of that is to hold people accountable for how they’re using government money, and I think it becomes more difficult for us to do that.”

Drazen said researchers are free to talk about their work, but it should be publicized by the main venue it appears in — the journals.

“We have our own internal rules, and if you don’t like it, you can still publish yourself elsewhere,” Drazen said. “But if you want to publish with us, we want primacy. We don’t want you selling your snake oil or whatever it is, before we have a chance to look at it.”

But the Open Science model is growing. Sites like OpenWetWare, which began in 2005, allow registered scientists to share their work before it comes out in a journal. The idea of unedited information out in the public domain makes the NEJM’s oldest living former editor, Arnold Relman, very nervous.

“That’s a double-edged sword. It may be … the best way to go for research that doesn’t involve human welfare and medicine and medical care,” Relman said. But when it comes to medical information, “without careful peer review and without careful editing, you have chaos.”

Drazen, too, spoke of “a different standard” for medical research. “When you’re deciding something that could make the difference between life or death for a patient, you want to have a different standard.”

But Dr. William Summers, a professor of History of Science and Medicine at Yale University, said that kind of attitude is problematic. The real problem, he said, is that the public puts too much stock in the results of individual experiments that get published in scientific journals.

“People want to believe,” Summers said. “They want to trust some authorities for these decisions that they know are complicated.

“And yet they have to understand that science is a provisional kind of activity, and it’s based on the best evidence we have now, but that may change … and it’s not a fault of science.

“(T)hat’s the way knowledge is generated.”

 

 

Part I of this series is available here.

 

This story by Neena Satija is part of a reporting partnership with WNPR. The audio version for this story — and the audio script — will be available Wednesday at 10 a.m. at yourpublicmedia.org.

The Part I audio script is available here.

 

Sign up for CT Mirror's free daily news summary.

Free to Read. Not Free to Produce.

The Connecticut Mirror is a nonprofit newsroom. 90% of our revenue comes from people like you. If you value our reporting please consider making a donation. You'll enjoy reading CT Mirror even more knowing you helped make it happen.

YES, I'LL DONATE TODAY

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Neena Satija

SEE WHAT READERS SAID

RELATED STORIES
Health issues carried weight on the campaign trail.
by Victoria Knight | Kaiser Health News

Even with the Democrats’ newfound Senate majority, differences in health policy between the party’s moderate and progressive wings will persist.

Trump’s pardons included health care execs behind massive fraud
by Fred Schulte | Kaiser Health News

At the last minute, President Donald Trump granted pardons to several individuals convicted in huge Medicare swindles that prosecutors alleged often harmed or endangered elderly and infirm patients while fleecing taxpayers. “These aren’t just technical financial crimes. These were major, major crimes,” said Louis Saccoccio, chief executive officer of the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association, […]

‘It’s a nightmare:’ A growing number of seniors are unable to book vaccine appointments as problems mount
by Dave Altimari and Jenna Carlesso

The state acknowledged Friday in an email to local health workers that some residents are waiting days for a callback.

Panel recommends small, inflationary pay hike for state officials
by Keith M. Phaneuf

Connecticut's part-time legislature hasn't received a pay hike since 2001. The annual base-pay for senators and representatives is $28,000.

Police task force seeks wider applicant pool for watchdog role
by Kelan Lyons

The task force sent four recommendations — and two that didn't get unanimous approval— to lawmakers for the 2021 session.

Support Our Work

Show your love for great stories and outstanding journalism.

$
Select One
  • Monthly
  • Yearly
  • Once
Artpoint painter
CT ViewpointsCT Artpoints
Opinion Miguel Cardona, who are you?
by Ann Policelli Cronin

When I ask Connecticut teachers about Miguel Cardona, those who know him or have worked with him say that he is really nice guy who knows what the challenges in our classrooms are, knows how to help teachers to improve their teaching, and respects public schools. All good. But what is his vision for teaching and learning that he will bring to the U.S. Department of Education?

Opinion Connecticut needs a strong two-party system, this Democrat says
by Edward Marcus

J.R. Romano’s recent resignation as the state’s Republican Party chair has brought into focus the need for a viable opposition party in Connecticut. It is not healthy politics when everything is totally controlled by one party:  the legislature, the governorship, and most of the major municipalities in our state.

Opinion Connecticut’s $100 million college shell game
by Stephen Adair

The plan to consolidate the 12 community colleges in Connecticut into one college with 12 campuses is called “Students First,” which is ironic because it does not fund students first.  It funds a new administration in a new, statewide bureaucracy. The Board of Regents (BOR) and the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) system office […]

Opinion Inconsistent television captioning is a barrier to equal access
by Jeffrey Bravin and Barbara Cassin

Our world long ago entered the age of the 24-hour news cycle, and a full understanding of the “who, what, when, where and why” of the news is critical for deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing citizens. Yet, Connecticut’s inconsistent quality of television captioning locks our community out of the complete sense of what is happening.

Artwork Grand guidance
by Anne:Gogh

In a world of systemic oppression aimed towards those of darker skintones – representation matters. We are more than our equity elusive environments, more than numbers in a prison and much more than victims of societal dispositions. This piece depicts a melanated young man draped in a cape ascending high above multiple forms of oppression. […]

Artwork Shea
by Anthony Valentine

Shea is a story about race and social inequalities that plague America. It is a narrative that prompts the question, “Do you know what it’s like to wake up in new skin?”

Artwork The Declaration of Human Rights
by Andres Chaparro

Through my artwork I strive to create an example of ideas that reflect my desire to raise social consciousness, and cultural awareness. Jazz music is the catalyst to all my work, and plays a major influence in each piece of work.”

Artwork ‘A thing of beauty. Destroy it forever’
by Richard DiCarlo | Derby

During times like these it’s often fun to revisit something familiar and approach things with a different slant. I have been taking some Pop culture and Art masterpieces and applying the vintage 1960’s and 70’s classic figures (Fisher Price, little people) to the make an amusing pieces. Here is my homage to Fisher -Price, Yellow […]

Twitter Feed
A Twitter List by CTMirror

Engage

  • Reflections Tickets & Sponsorships
  • Events
  • Donate
  • Newsletter Sign-Up
  • Submit to Viewpoints
  • Submit to ArtPoints
  • Economic Indicator Dashboard
  • Speaking Engagements
  • Commenting Guidelines
  • Legal Notices
  • Contact Us

About

  • About CT Mirror
  • Announcements
  • Board
  • Staff
  • Sponsors and Funders
  • Donors
  • Friends of CT Mirror
  • History
  • Financial
  • Policies
  • Strategic Plan

Opportunity

  • Advertising and Sponsorship
  • Speaking Engagements
  • Use of Photography
  • Work for Us

Go Deeper

  • Steady Habits Podcast
  • Economic Indicator Dashboard
  • Five Things

The Connecticut News Project, Inc. 1049 Asylum Avenue, Hartford, CT 06105. Phone: 860-218-6380

© Copyright 2021, The Connecticut News Project. All Rights Reserved. Website by Web Publisher PRO