Editorial
The Internet and the Journal
N Engl J Med 1995; 332:1709-1710June 22, 1995
- Article
The word “publishing” has taken on new meaning. For centuries, publishing required an intermediary, someone who had an editorial staff and a press — in short, a publisher. Today, anyone equipped with a computer, a modem, and a connection to the Internet can be a publisher. The consequences of this technical transformation should give pause to all of us in medicine. Direct electronic publishing of scientific studies threatens to undermine time-tested traditions that help to ensure the quality of the medical literature.
The first hint that electronic publishing by medical researchers might become a reality came from the field of physics. Research physicists have been communicating with one another electronically for approximately 15 years, sharing preliminary results (“preprints”) before sending their data for publication. Approximately four years ago, a physicist, Paul Ginsparg, began collecting these preprints of research papers in a host computer at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. That computer has since become a vast repository of physics preprints. Every day, thousands of physicists in 60 countries receive e-mail messages from the Los Alamos computer, and any of them can download the files from the host computer.1 The physicists submit and replace their research “papers” and make changes whenever they see fit. The system functions much like an electronic journal, yet because the individual communications can be constantly revised by the investigators, they are not fixed in time as are papers in print journals.
Some have suggested that this method of publication might be desirable for medical studies. One group of devotees of electronic publishing recently proposed that, as in physics, medical-research communications might be stored electronically and titles and abstracts distributed by the Internet daily.2 Papers would be considered works in progress that could be changed as the author wished. In this system an open process in which anyone could comment on any paper would replace the peer-review system. The quality of a paper would be assessed by the number of times it was cited and retrieved.
What are the flaws in this proposal? In our opinion, a study represented by an abstract or a presentation at a medical meeting is incomplete until it undergoes peer review, is revised accordingly, and is published. A study found to be badly flawed during peer review may be completely revised or never published. Publishing preprints electronically sidesteps peer review and increases the risk that the data and interpretations of a study will be biased or even wrong. Investigators cannot be expected to judge their own work dispassionately. They are usually enthusiastic about their hypotheses and may be unaware of flaws in the design of their experiments or of the insufficiency of their data to support their conclusions. They need independent experts to evaluate their data. Most journal editors rely on carefully selected reviewers whose opinions about the originality, validity, and timeliness of a manuscript count heavily in the decision for or against publication. The reviewers are an investigator's peers; they cannot be replaced by multiple unspecified users of the Internet. When a scientific study is assessed by majority rule, the result is likely to be highly unreliable. Such a process could also invite manipulation and even fraud.
Another source of concern is the fact that much information about health issues on the Internet, such as the risks of medications and the effects of various foods on health, is of uncertain parentage. (Surely, anonymity has no place in reporting medical research.) At present the Internet seems to promote medical rumors more than dispassionate scholarship. Papers in medical journals are technical communications intended for physicians, not for direct consumption by the public. Physicians should act on new studies only after carefully considering the strength of the research and how the new data relate to previous studies, and after assessing whether the population studied is relevant to the patient at hand. Public access to Internet preprints of medical studies might lead some people to use the wrong medications or to stop taking needed ones on the basis of inadequate information, as has happened from time to time when news reports failed to interpret adequately a presentation at a medical meeting.
According to our current policies,3 we do not consider a manuscript for publication if its substance has already been reported elsewhere. An explicit policy is needed for the Internet because of its enormous capacity to transmit information to a large number of people simultaneously. We have decided that electronic publication should not be regarded differently. Thus, posting a manuscript, including its figures and tables, on a host computer to which anyone on the Internet can gain access will constitute prior publication. On the other hand, sending manuscripts by e-mail to a limited number of colleagues — a dozen or two, let us say — will not. Such a practice is analogous to faxing manuscripts to a group of research collaborators.
For studies submitted to us that have immediate health implications, we will continue our efforts to see that dissemination of urgent medical information is not delayed by either peer review or the publication process. Accordingly, we will discuss with authors the need for expedited review and rapid disclosure of studies, as we have described elsewhere.3 We believe that these policies are the best way to minimize dissemination of uninterpretable information while permitting the free exchange of ideas and data among colleagues and collaborators.
Physicians have not been at the forefront of electronic communication, but many are beginning to use e-mail and to explore the Internet. Electronic communication is likely to become critically important in medicine,4 and it behooves physicians to become competent in using it. In the future, when the Internet is widely used by physicians, information about advances that may have an immediate effect on the health of individuals or populations may best be communicated through this medium. But medicine is not physics: the wide circulation of unedited preprints in physics is unlikely to have an immediate effect on the public's well-being even if the material is biased or false. In medicine, such a practice could have unintended consequences that we all would regret.
Jerome P. Kassirer, M.D.
Marcia Angell, M.D.- References
References
1
Mulligan M. Media features: speeding up the appliance of science — Martin Mulligan looks at the electronic exchange of research information. Financial Times. March 13, 1995:13.
2
LaPorte RE ,Merler E ,Akazawa S , et al. The death of biomedical journals. BMJ 1995;310:1387-1390
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Angell M ,Kassirer JP . The Ingelfinger rule revisited. N Engl J Med 1991;325:1371-1373
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline4
Kassirer JP . The next transformation in the delivery of health care. N Engl J Med 1995;332:52-54
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (32)
Citing Articles
1
Rob Kling, Lisa Spector, Geoff McKim. (2002) Locally controlled scholarly publishing via the internet: The guild model. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 39:1, 228-238
CrossRef2
D. John Doyle. (2002) New media. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie 49:2, 210-213
CrossRef3
Kenneth L. Carriveau. (2001) A Brief History of E-Prints and the Opportunities They Open for Science Librarians. Science & Technology Libraries 20:2-3, 73-82
CrossRef4
Victor Grech. (2001) Online publishing: how, why and other related issues. Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine 24:3, 121-125
CrossRef5
Gunther Eysenbach. (2000) The impact of preprint servers and electronic publishing on biomedical research. Current Opinion in Immunology 12:5, 499-503
CrossRef6
Steinbrook, Robert, . (2000) Medical Journals and Medical Reporting. New England Journal of Medicine 342:22, 1668-1671
Full Text7
Ann C. Weller. (2000) Editorial peer review for electronic journals: Current issues and emerging models. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51:14, 1328-1333
CrossRef8
Angel A Hernández-Borges, Pablo Macías-Cervi, María Asunción Gaspar-Guardado, María Luisa Torres-Álvarez DeArcaya, Ana Ruiz-Rabaza, Alejandro Jiménez-Sosa. (1999) Can Examination of WWW Usage Statistics and other Indirect Quality Indicators Help to Distinguish the Relative Quality of Medical websites?. Journal of Medical Internet Research 1:1, e1
CrossRef9
Keith J. Ruskin. (1998) Information systems and multimedia as educational tools. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology 11:6, 665-670
CrossRef10
Keith J. Ruskin. (1998) The Internet. Anesthesiology 89:4, 1003-1014
CrossRef11
Craig M Bingham, Gail Higgins, Ross Coleman, Martin B Van Der Weyden. (1998) The Medical Journal of Australia internet peer-review study. The Lancet 352:9126, 441-445
CrossRef12
Claire Glenton, Andrew D. Oxman. (1998) The use of evidence by health care user organizations. Health Expectations 1:1, 14-22
CrossRef13
Craig Bingham. (1998) Peer review on the Internet: A better class of conversation. The Lancet 351, S10-S14
CrossRef14
M. Smith, G. Gettinby, M. Granström, J.S. Gray, E.C. Guy, C. Revie, J.N. Robertson, G. Stanek. (1998) The European Union Concerted Action World Wide Web Site for Lyme Borreliosis. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie 287:3, 266-269
CrossRef15
Richard Horton. (1997) The unstable medical research paper. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 50:9, 981-986
CrossRef16
Jean Deason Culver, Fredric Gerr, Howard Frumkin, DrPh. (1997) Medical Information on the Internet A Study of an Electronic Bulletin Board. Journal of General Internal Medicine 12:8, 466-470
CrossRef17
Cynthia R. King, Deborah B. McGuire, Alice J. Longman, Rose Mary Carrol-Johnson. (1997) Peer Review, Authorship, Ethics, and Conflict of Interest. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 29:2, 163-168
CrossRef18
C BRYANBROWN, D CRIPPEN. (1997) INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS. Critical Care Clinics 13:2, 441-452
CrossRef19
M. Mayer, J. E. Till. (1996) The Internet: A modern Pandora's Box?. Quality of Life Research 5:6, 568-571
CrossRef20
S. M. YENTIS, R. OOI. (1996) Anaesthesia and the Internet. Anaesthesia 51:11, 677-682
CrossRef21
Deborah J. Cook, Maureen O. Meade, Mitchell P. Fink. (1996) How to keep up with the critical care literature and avoid being buried alive. Critical Care Medicine 24:10, 1757-1768
CrossRef22
S. M. YENTIS, R. OOI. (1996) Anaesthesia and the Internet. Anaesthesia 51:7, 677-682
CrossRef23
Peter J. Duffy, Donald R. Miller. (1996) Reply. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 43:6, 640-641
CrossRef24
Richard Horton. (1996) Ruling out Ingelfinger?. The Lancet 347:9013, 1423-1424
CrossRef25
L.K. Altman. (1996) The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review-part 1. The Lancet 347:9012, 1382-1386
CrossRef26
MarkW. Davies, Richard Wenstone. (1996) The Internet: a global coffee room. The Lancet 347:9005, 897
CrossRef27
Donald T. Hawkins. (1996) Dealing with the Internet shock. Publishers, online services and information professionals.. Journal of Information Processing and Management 39:8, 565-583
CrossRef28
Gambacorti-Passerini, Carlo, , Ott, Jurg, , Bergen, Arthur, . (1995) The Human Molecular Genetics Network. New England Journal of Medicine 333:23, 1573-1573
Full Text29
Pia Pini. (1995) Media wars. The Lancet 346:8991-8992, 1681-1683
CrossRef30
B.B. Dan. (1995) Information lives; medical television dies. The Lancet 346:8985, 1280-1281
CrossRef31
(1995) The Internet and the Journal. New England Journal of Medicine 333:16, 1077-1080
Full Text32
Simon G A Brown. (1995) The Internet, netsurfing and emergency medicine. Emergency Medicine 7:3, 174-177
CrossRef
- Letters
