EDITORIAL
Medical journals - do they have a future? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1992; 71: 327-328
Dear reader, Not infrequently, we read advertisements and receive pamphlets on new journals which are devoted to publishing articles from narrow but currently ‘hot’ topical areas within or bordering on our speciality, the most recent example from my mailbox being the Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. This is a universal trend and it is not new. In fact, since the publication of the earliest surviving scientific journal, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, in 1665, the growth of new journals has been steadily increasing at a rate of five to seven percent per year, with a slight decline since the end of the 1970s. Already in 1830 there were so many scientific journals (about 300) that no single person could manage to read them all. The perfect solution to that problem was the abstract journal, which then started to proliferate at the same geometric rate as its original predecessor, reaching the number 300 around 1950. There are now over 100,000 scientific periodicals in the world, and in medicine alone the National Library of Medicine records about 600 new journals per year. N o wonder, then, that obstetrics and gynecology are endowed with a host of new titles. . These facts were extracted from different chapters in the book ‘The Future of Medical Journals’ edited by the recently retired editor of the British Medical Journal, Stephen Lock (published by the British Medical Journal, Tavistock Square, London W C l H 9JR, 1991). This is a highly readable book which made me reflect on the curious state of affairs. The proliferation of scientific journals answers at least two needs: first, a demand from the growing number of scientists to have their papers published, and second, the branching of research fields into subspecialties, each with its own demand of intercommunication. With 75,000 articles presently published in biomedical journals each week, the net 23 *
annual result is an astronomical number, which increases year by year. The result on the receiving end can be put briefly: the more we write, the less we read, and whether we feel any better is a matter for dispute. The surprising thing is that there is money around to sustain this business of scientific publication. There must be, otherwise the publishing houses would not exhibit their present interest in promoting it. Scientific periodicals and journals constitute a special case. While in all other magazines authors and readers are two separate groups, the former being a few salaried writers, in scientific journals the readers are also the authors or prospective authors. The remuneration for writing research papers is to be read and acknowledged by peers, with the added hope that in the distant future your production will be credited in a competitive world of academic promotion. A few will also have the satisfaction of breaking new ground. However, none of us is able to read more than a small fraction of what is written, even within her or his special field. There is hardly time to scan the tables of contents from week to week. With this state of affairs, one wonders how all those journals can thrive. Undoubtedly, some suffocate from want of subscribers but others come to replace them. Here lies a threat but also a challenge. In a Darwinian world it is only natural that the utmost should go to the devil while the new sprouts thrive. Did you notice that the venerated Punch (originally Punch, or the London Charivari) closed down in April of this year, for want of readers? T h e humor had lost its appeal. Some of us old-timers feel sorry while the young haven’t even heard the name. My mind wanders. Where am I heading? O h , yes, back to the challenge: if we want to survive, we have to follow the times and make necessary changes. We cannot ignore the needs of our readers. For Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica I believe it Acta
Obster Gynecol Scand 71 (1992)
328
Editorial
is possible to retain the core of high quality scientific contributions while garnishing the issues with more easily digestible food and sound information in the form of an ‘Acta history’, ‘Acta commentary’, ‘Acta review’, ‘Case reports’, ‘Summary of Doctoral thesis’, ‘Letters’, ‘Book reviews’ and, in all modesty, an
Acra Obstei Gynecol Scand 71 (1992)
‘Editorial’ signed by yours truly. Given time, we may think of more. If you feel inclined to contribute to any of these sections and thereby to make our journal more lively, do not hesitate to contact me. Per Bergs$
Medical journals - do they have a future? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1992; 71: 327-328
Dear reader, Not infrequently, we read advertisements and receive pamphlets on new journals which are devoted to publishing articles from narrow but currently ‘hot’ topical areas within or bordering on our speciality, the most recent example from my mailbox being the Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. This is a universal trend and it is not new. In fact, since the publication of the earliest surviving scientific journal, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, in 1665, the growth of new journals has been steadily increasing at a rate of five to seven percent per year, with a slight decline since the end of the 1970s. Already in 1830 there were so many scientific journals (about 300) that no single person could manage to read them all. The perfect solution to that problem was the abstract journal, which then started to proliferate at the same geometric rate as its original predecessor, reaching the number 300 around 1950. There are now over 100,000 scientific periodicals in the world, and in medicine alone the National Library of Medicine records about 600 new journals per year. N o wonder, then, that obstetrics and gynecology are endowed with a host of new titles. . These facts were extracted from different chapters in the book ‘The Future of Medical Journals’ edited by the recently retired editor of the British Medical Journal, Stephen Lock (published by the British Medical Journal, Tavistock Square, London W C l H 9JR, 1991). This is a highly readable book which made me reflect on the curious state of affairs. The proliferation of scientific journals answers at least two needs: first, a demand from the growing number of scientists to have their papers published, and second, the branching of research fields into subspecialties, each with its own demand of intercommunication. With 75,000 articles presently published in biomedical journals each week, the net 23 *
annual result is an astronomical number, which increases year by year. The result on the receiving end can be put briefly: the more we write, the less we read, and whether we feel any better is a matter for dispute. The surprising thing is that there is money around to sustain this business of scientific publication. There must be, otherwise the publishing houses would not exhibit their present interest in promoting it. Scientific periodicals and journals constitute a special case. While in all other magazines authors and readers are two separate groups, the former being a few salaried writers, in scientific journals the readers are also the authors or prospective authors. The remuneration for writing research papers is to be read and acknowledged by peers, with the added hope that in the distant future your production will be credited in a competitive world of academic promotion. A few will also have the satisfaction of breaking new ground. However, none of us is able to read more than a small fraction of what is written, even within her or his special field. There is hardly time to scan the tables of contents from week to week. With this state of affairs, one wonders how all those journals can thrive. Undoubtedly, some suffocate from want of subscribers but others come to replace them. Here lies a threat but also a challenge. In a Darwinian world it is only natural that the utmost should go to the devil while the new sprouts thrive. Did you notice that the venerated Punch (originally Punch, or the London Charivari) closed down in April of this year, for want of readers? T h e humor had lost its appeal. Some of us old-timers feel sorry while the young haven’t even heard the name. My mind wanders. Where am I heading? O h , yes, back to the challenge: if we want to survive, we have to follow the times and make necessary changes. We cannot ignore the needs of our readers. For Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica I believe it Acta
Obster Gynecol Scand 71 (1992)
328
Editorial
is possible to retain the core of high quality scientific contributions while garnishing the issues with more easily digestible food and sound information in the form of an ‘Acta history’, ‘Acta commentary’, ‘Acta review’, ‘Case reports’, ‘Summary of Doctoral thesis’, ‘Letters’, ‘Book reviews’ and, in all modesty, an
Acra Obstei Gynecol Scand 71 (1992)
‘Editorial’ signed by yours truly. Given time, we may think of more. If you feel inclined to contribute to any of these sections and thereby to make our journal more lively, do not hesitate to contact me. Per Bergs$
