Abstract
I
Along these lines, I want to ruminate about an October 2013 Science article titled, “Who's Afraid of Peer Review?” by John Bohannon, 1 where the author detailed a “sting” operation that sent out a fake article to more than 304 open access journals, with more than half of them accepting the article with virtually no corrections. The psychology and morals behind such a sting operation can be discussed ad infinitum, but for all of us who could have been subject to this sting, it keeps us wondering when the next sting will come. Even the esteemed Science journal has had its share of infamous retractions. Carl Zimmer of the New York Times wrote about a record number of scientific journal retractions over the last 10 years from mistakes or fraud. 2 What can we do to be good stewards of this Journal? I am open to sound advice.
In addition to the fine articles appearing in this issue, I am particularly privileged to have three helpful articles that will assist reviewers and readers alike in judging the quality of papers they read. Dr. Thomas Wesley Allen from the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine in Tulsa has written his perspective on performing a quality journal peer review. Dr. Allen was a long-serving Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association and ushered it onto the shelves of the world's medical libraries. He is more than qualified to judge the quality of publications. I follow Dr. Allen with a self-explanatory decision tree to screen for the appropriateness of statistical procedures used in scientific writing. Finally, Dr. Melissa Kalarchian, Associate Dean of Research at the Duquesne University School of Nursing in Pittsburgh, and her colleague Dr. Melanie Turk write about what makes a good qualitative research study. I have seen a rise in publications involving qualitative research tools, which is something I was only superficially exposed to in B-school. So, I will learn something as well from the Duquesne team.
In this issue, we have another installment of a very relevant debate by two of the most highly regarded leaders in the bariatric surgery field on the pros and cons of adjustable gastric banding. We captured this debate during the International Bariatric Club Symposium held in August of 2013 in Istanbul, Turkey. Their next meeting will be in Montreal, Canada, in August 2014. Finally, but never least, Tara Kelly provides her column for the Clinical Focal Point, which always draws attention and continues to be downloaded with respectable frequency.
I think the way to remain good stewards of this Journal and maintain high standards is to use our best professional judgment, seek relevance, make sure we are serving our constituents' curiosity and needs, exercise a dose of healthy doubt, and use plenty of common sense. I hope the contents of this issue meet these benchmarks.