Advantages and Potential Dangers of Presentation Before Publication Third in a Series on Editorship
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SPECIAL ARTICLE Advantages and Potential Dangers of Presentation Before Publication Third in a Series on Editorship Neil M. Bressler, MD; Thomas J. Liesegang, MD; Andrew P. Schachat, MD; Daniel M. Albert, MD n all fields of medicine, many investigators choose to present their research at scientific meetings before publication. In ophthalmology, a variety of organizations provide venues for such presentations, for example, at the annual meetings of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology or the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Presentations Iat scientific meetings provide an important venue for researchers to share their methods, results, and conclusions with some of their peers. Valuable feedback may result in the adoption of differ- ent methods, analysis of additional results, or restructuring of conclusions. The end result may be that the scientific community benefits as the work is refined and improved before publication. POTENTIAL DANGERS OF redundant or duplicate publication and SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATIONS would be a copyright infringement by the journal under US law. The mission of the Scientific writers for the public (eg, news- newspaper or tabloid may be in conflict paper reporters) or for eye care profes- with the mission of the peer-reviewed sci- sionals (eg, writers for commercial pub- entific journal. Thus, the newspaper or tab- lications, sometimes termed “tabloids” or loid may not grant permission for publi- “throwaway” journals, usually with little cation, or may grant publication with or no peer-review process) may publish in- certain stipulations that may be in con- formation from scientific presentations. In- flict with suggested revisions from the peer- formation published in tabloids from review process. We are unaware of whether scientific presentations often includes “top- this concept has ever been the pretext for line” results or brief summaries that may a copyright dispute, but it could be. appeal to busy physician readers,1 but it Even if the research is subsequently usually does not include detailed meth- submitted for publication in a peer- ods or discussion of potential limitations reviewed journal with permission of the of the research methods. Routine publi- prior entity that holds the copyright, the cation of research results from scientific material would not be original, and, there- presentations in non–peer-reviewed for- fore, the scientific community may be less mats before publication in peer-reviewed likely to read the article in the journal. journals could potentially endanger the vi- Readers of peer-reviewed journals as- ability of peer-reviewed journals. sume that the material they are reading is How could that happen? If research original, peer reviewed, and not previ- is published in a newspaper or tabloid, then ously published (unless there is a clear that newspaper or tabloid retains the copy- statement to the contrary). If the scien- right to the material. Publication of the ma- tific community no longer needs to pur- terial in a journal after it has been pub- chase the services (publications) of peer- lished elsewhere without permission of the reviewed journals, the journals may not entity that holds the copyright would be be able to survive economically. What is so bad about not having peer- From The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (Drs Bressler reviewed journals? Why not just get and Schachat); Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla (Dr Liesegang); and University of printed results of scientific investiga- Wisconsin, Madison (Dr Albert). The authors have no relevant financial interest in this tions from sources that do not have peer article. review? Without a peer-review process (REPRINTED) ARCH OPHTHALMOL / VOL 122, JULY 2004 WWW.ARCHOPHTHALMOL.COM 1045 ©2004 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/24/2021 available for the scientific commu- and Schwartz,3 who noted that when randomized clinical trials are nity, the quality of scientific publi- data presented at scientific meet- reported on, a detailed presenta- cations may diminish (few people ings before a peer review often use tion of the methods, results, and con- submit a perfect paper that is not im- formats that may exaggerate the clusions usually is to follow the Con- proved by the peer-review process). perceived importance of findings.3 solidated Standards of Reporting Peer reviews are provided by phy- Moreover, coverage of abstracts at Trials (CONSORT) statement.7 The sicians and scientists who presum- scientific meetings or coverage of specific information provided by ably have been trained to evaluate results in the peer-reviewed litera- these guidelines may expose poten- scientific methods critically and ture often receive substantial tial biases or weaknesses and could judge whether conclusions are war- attention in high-profile media affect the validity of the results or ranted by the methods and results because the information is new justification of the conclusions. Plat- reported by the manuscript’s au- and available to the public for the form presentations usually do not thors. The authors of a manuscript first time. provide enough time or adequate submitted for publication in a peer- Unfortunately, the coverage is structure to present all of this infor- reviewed journal should benefit from often incomplete, inaccurate, or mation. The written publication is an unbiased evaluation by journal re- both. For example, when the Na- needed for such reports. The more viewers; these reviewers should tional Emphysema Treatment Trial complete reports may not be of in- bring additional expertise to the au- Research Group presented and pub- terest to a newspaper or tabloid but thors’ submission that presumably lished results on study participants are critical to the understanding of results in an improved manuscript who were at high risk of death after randomized clinical trial results, credited to the authors. Readers of lung-volume–reduction surgery, the which represent one of the stron- peer-reviewed publications also can title “Patients at High Risk of Death gest lines of evidence that impact benefit from peer review; specifi- After Lung-Volume–Reduction Sur- treatment of common conditions. cally, readers should recognize that gery”4 was interpreted as “Patients the articles they read in peer-re- [Are] at High Risk ...”rather than JOURNALS’ POTENTIAL viewed journals have undergone a “Patients [Who Are] at High Risk. SOLUTIONS TO MINIMIZE review independent of the articles’ ...”TheWall Street Journal head- DUPLICATE OR PRIOR authors, potentially resulting in im- line read, “Study Casts Doubt on PUBLICATION proved manuscripts based on these Surgery Used Against Emphy- unbiased reviews. sema,” and the article stated, “An in- To protect the viability of peer- Thus, publication of material creasingly used surgery...actu- reviewed journals in ophthalmol- from a scientific meeting in a for- ally did more harm than good in a ogy such as the American Journal of mat that is not peer reviewed be- group of patients with very severe Ophthalmology, the Archives of Oph- fore publication of the material in a disease.”5 The results in the peer- thalmology, and Ophthalmology, peer-reviewed journal threatens the reviewed publication had a differ- these journals follow the Ingelfin- viability of peer-reviewed journals; ent message: ger rule and its revisions, first pro- loss of peer-reviewed journals would . [W]e have identified a combina- posed in the 1970s by Franz Ingel- weaken the quality of literature avail- tion of physiological and radiographic finger, an editor of the New England able to the scientific community. characteristics in a group of patients with Journal of Medicine. The Ingelfinger The critical, independent, ex- emphysema that places them at high risk rule stated that the New England pert evaluation provided by peer- of death after lung-volume–reduction Journal of Medicine would not pub- reviewed journals usually is not a surgery and who also are unlikely to have lish a research report that already major concern of newspapers, tab- large improvements in functional sta- had been presented substantively loids, or, for that matter, the lay pub- tus or the quality of life as a result of this elsewhere.8 Presumably, the defini- procedure.4(p1082) lic. The process of organizing, re- tion of substantively must be deter- viewing, revising, and reporting Not only might coverage of sci- mined on a case-by-case basis by the medical research in full detail that entific presentations by newspa- journal’s editor. Extrapolating from results in a successful peer-re- pers or tabloids be incomplete or in- this rule, only original material that viewed journal submission is an in- accurate, but also a considerable has not been presented substan- tegral part of clinical research, es- number of abstracts or presenta- tively elsewhere will be published in sential to quality control.2 Without tions remain unpublished in any of most peer-reviewed journals, includ- journals that have peer review, pub- 25000 medical journals, suggest- ing the American Journal of Ophthal- lication could be determined by ing that they were judged not to be mology, the Archives of Ophthalmol- other, less scientific criteria, for ex- valid when subjected to a peer- ogy, and Ophthalmology. Authors ample, which industry supplies the review process.6 should not distribute e-prints, pre- greatest financial support to a par- Because oral presentations of prints, or reprints