FROM THE EDITOR

On getting published in the SAMJ

'Work; finish; publish' (Michael Faraday^[1])

The SAMJ proudly publishes research that impacts on clinical practice in (South) Africa, reflecting the journal's byline 'Leading research impacting clinical care in Africa which implies that we have been pleased, as readers will know, to have entertained work from researchers in other countries in Africa (see 'Sources of articles published in SAMJ/CME during 2014'^[2]).

One of the pleasures of my role as Editor is to accept and publish the work of (South) Africa's young clinical scientists, recently established in their chosen field and embarking on their research, or even having undertaken research during community service. Common to the manuscript that is successful is clear evidence of mentorship^[3] in the undertaking of the research. It is interesting to note The Lancet's growing insistence on what they term 'Research in context':^[4] offering a description of all the evidence that the author(s) considered before undertaking the study, a description of how the findings add value to the existing evidence, and a statement of the implications for practice or policy, and future research, of their study.

In the generation of the article submitted for publication, some fundamental rules need to be followed: going into the SAMJ's website and reading the Author Guidelines, and submitting in the belief that the research is a good 'fit' for the journal, whose readership is 'generalist' at a general practice and specialist level; ensuring that the abstract is crafted with special attention (given that it is all that may be read, it must convey the 'whole story' of the research); and accepting with grace and humility the comments of reviewers who suggest revisions, and complying - as far as is possible - with those suggestions.

The SAMJ rejects some 50 - 70% of submissions, and authors need to prepare for, and graciously accept, the journal's decision not to publish an article. The chief reason for rejection is that an article is not suitable for the journal ... that its subject matter is too parochial and not generalisable, or too highly specialised for the readership and more suited to a specialist journal. Clear evidence that the Author Guidelines have not been read, or even that previous SAMJs and similar articles have not been studied for the 'SAMJ format', immediately signals problems. Also, shorter is always better! We have good reasons for not accepting lengthy articles with countless references, which, if they were to be accepted, would delay publication of others in the queue and add to the copyediting, and proofreading, workload. Simply put . research the SAMJ before submission, and research again. The best response to rejection is to consider whether another journal, perhaps one of the SAMfs siblings,^[5] might not be a better choice and getting on with rewriting the article with that journal in mind, paying heed to the advice of reviewers, if available. It bears mentioning that the SAMJ will entertain a request for reconsideration following rejection, if soundly motivated.

Some 10 - 20% of submissions are accepted at 'first-pass review' by the journal's Editorial Advisory Committee, the remainder proceeding to review by expert, discipline-specific peer reviewers, of whom, it must be said, there is an insufficient number willing to spend the 4 - 8 hours (typically of down and relaxation time) on the academic task of adjudicating a paper's worthiness and scientific strength. We are grateful to those generous national and international colleagues who support the journal by undertaking peer review for us, seeing it as part of their academic endeavour. Our expert reviewers criticise lack of originality, unclear hypotheses, poor or weak design, a too-small sample, inappropriate or misapplied statistics, unjustified conclusions and outdated or overlooked references. A rash of MMed theses, offered for publication, all too often reveal these deficiencies, and importantly absence of the mentorship referred to above. We are on the lookout for conflicts of interest^[6] and ethical breaches (though these are rare).

Too often, local authors have a tendency to lean heavily on differences between racial cohorts without sound reasons. The SAMfs Emeritus Editor Daniel J Ncayiyana has offered advice:^[7] 'In unequal societies with a history of institutionalised racism, particular health and medical problems have a particular prevalence in ethnic groups that are longstanding victims of material deprivation and health care inequities. In this context, research into health disparities of social groups that are victims of discrimination is both legitimate and important. However, the researcher should be quite clear as to what is being measured. The research should not lead to "social and economic variables [being] mixed up with, and confused with genetic determinants" in the mind of the researcher, and should not lead to the misperception that being black (for example) - rather than poverty, limited education, poor housing, lack of sanitation, poor nutrition and other deprivations - is the "explanation" for ill health.'

Then there are author 'crimes': duplicate publication (the same article, modestly reframed and offered to more than one journal), 'salami' publishing (the same body of work divided into several segments in an attempt to achieve multiple publications), and plagiarism, especially from websites. All articles submitted to all the HMPG titles are 'seen' by the iThenticate plagiarism screening system, which screens submitted papers for originality and can tell whether a paper contains passages of text that also appear in other publications or resources.^[8] This means that we can (generally, but not always) catch articles with plagiarised content.

Publishing worldwide has run into financial difficulties for a number of reasons. And, for a journal that is circulated by post to some 17 000 SAMA members, it does not help that postal and distribution costs are escalating and that the postal service fails because of strikes. Moreover, cost containment requires that the print volume of the journal is held to a finite page allocation, limiting the number of research papers that can be published in any one print edition. This is why, since January 2014, CME has been co-joined with SAMJ and is limited to printed summaries, the full articles being published online, and why, since November 2014, the SAMJ has published printed abstracts of papers (randomly selected) with the full paper available online. A loose canvassing of the opinion of one's younger, and even older, colleagues reveals their comfort with this, and unashamed admission that the journal often remains in its plastic sleeve and is read instead on one or another computer platform. As suggested in my inaugural editorial,^[9] the entire journal will in time go this way.

In 2005, George D Lundberg, former Editor of JAMA, provided advice during a seminar to hundreds of student authors^[1] on 'How to write a medical paper to get it published in a good journal' (the video that accompanies this reference is worth looking at). Lundberg says this: 'Writing is hard work. So you want to write a paper? What do you have to say? Is it worth writing? Has the information already been published? What format should it be? What is the audience? What journal is appropriate? Expect peer review, a process that began some 300 years ago in France and in England and revolutionized science by creating a culture of peer criticism and self-criticism. Peer reviewers are asked: Is the manuscript original, important, interesting; are the data valid; are the conclusions justified by the data; is the writing clear; and what is the priority and timing? Is it new? Is it true? All journals make messes. They clean them up in the letters column and by corrections and retractions.'

Lundberg goes on to highlight the presence of a vade mecum for would-be authors adapted from Tierney of Indiana University and available by clicking on http://images.medscape.com/images/515/525/mgm515525.attachment.doc

In his Offline commentary entitled 'Think English',!¹⁰¹ the Editor of The Lancet last year addressed a question frequently posed to him: 'How can I publish my paper in The Lancet?' Horton's answer was 'But the question is ridiculous. Who cares about getting published in The Lancet?' Invoking Michael Faraday, one of the world's greatest scientists, Horton stated: 'Getting published at all is what ought to count for a young scientist.'

Janet Seggie
Editor
janet.seggie@hmpg.co.za

References

1. Lundberg GD. How to write a medical paper to get it published in a good journal. MedGenMed 2005;7(4):36.         [ Links ]

2. Sources of articles published in SAMJ/CME during 2014. S Afr Med J 2015;105(1): between pages 34 and 35.         [ Links ]

3. Seggie J. On mentors hip. S Afr Med J 2014; 104(7) :453.[http://dx.doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.8437]        [ Links ]

4. Kleinert S, Benham L, Collingridge D, Summerskill W, Horton R. Further emphasis on research in context. Lancet 2014;384(9961):2176-2177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62047-X]        [ Links ]

5. Health and Medical Publishing Group. List of journals. http://www.hmpg.co.za/journals (accessed 12 January 2015).         [ Links ]

6. Blockman M, Parrish A. Who will guard the guards? Medical leadership and conflict of interest in South African healthcare. S Afr Med J 2014;104(11):757-758. [http://dx.doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.8546]        [ Links ]

7. Ncayiyana DJ. Racial profiling in medical research: What are we measuring? S Afr Med J 2007;97(12):1225-1226.         [ Links ]

8. iThenticate. Plagiarism blog. http://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/bid/63534/CrossCheck-Plagiarism-Screening-Understanding-the-Similarity-Score#.VFyoQPSUe9g (accessed 12 January 2015).         [ Links ]

9. Seggie J. There are no schools for medical editors. S Afr Med J 2013;103(2):65-66. [http://dx.doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.6618]        [ Links ]

10. Horton R. Offline: Think English. Lancet 2013;381(9880):1800. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61085-5]        [ Links ]