The Currency of Science

It is a reasonable assumption that academic physicians or scientists in the medical field are goal-driven individuals who strive to achieve some measure of success and/or recognition. These goals may be self-directed or directed by requirements for tenure, promotion, funding, etc. Peer-reviewed publications feature significantly among these goals or measures. Consequently, in response to the iron law of supply and demand, there has been a proliferation of biomedical journals that intentionally or unintentionally cater to this need. This has led to some distortion of the publishing field with a proliferation of new journals intended to make publishing for investigators an endeavor with a quasi-guaranteed outcome. These pressures are less likely to affect the more visible, high-impact journals than they are journals with a more restricted distribution and readership.

Peer-reviewed publications are the currency of our science and, therefore, it is important that we all understand our role in maintaining the value of this currency. Authors have primary responsibility in this regard by adhering to ethical principles and safeguarding the integrity of their data. In addition to this basic foundation, they should strive to undertake original research that seeks to improve human health by testing a prespecified hypothesis. Repurposing previously published work or reporting a sequential case series collected solely from a single practice should be avoided, especially if the primary objective of the exercise is to publish rather than to contribute new knowledge or to validate new discoveries.

Editors and associate editors play an important role in helping to ensure fair and scientifically adequate reviews while ensuring that accepted publications align with the scientific direction of their journal. Untying the Gordian knot of seeking good science, applying scientific rigor, and at the same time balancing novelty with reliable data replication are tasks that are difficult to perform satisfactorily on a regular basis.

Of course, reviewers are often the unsung heroes of this process since they respond to unsolicited requests for additional work and time by providing rigorous peer review. They often identify failings and, if possible, provide corrections or remedies if indicated. In addition, they are asked to rank the merit of a given article against a nebulous combination of current submissions and prior publications.

These musings come to me 7 months after accepting the editorship of a journal that (I hope) will play an important role in ensuring that high-quality human-based research relevant to metabolic disease receives its due recognition. Having allowed some time to pass since being thrust into the day-to-day management of a scientific journal, I think it is reasonable to share my thoughts with the readership in terms of the future directions of Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders. I will preface this by noting that the journal continues to hold its own among its peers in terms of impact factor, is widely read, and worldwide downloads of articles published in this journal continue to increase.

This time last year, my colleagues and I discussed the pressures facing metabolic clinical investigators and the necessity of mechanistic metabolic clinical investigation. ¹ With this in mind, it certainly seems reasonable to focus our endeavors on attracting well-performed mechanistic studies in humans that are relevant to obesity, dyslipidemia, or diabetes. We also wish to explore areas that are of relevance to metabolism such as enteric signaling in metabolic disease, ² vascular disease, circadian biology, and sleep disorders. ³ In the future, we expect to dedicate specific issues to such novel aspects of metabolic disease and welcome guidance in this matter from our readership. Other possibilities include articles focusing on research methodologies that are important for clinically important research such as the measurement of body composition, ⁴ insulin secretion, ⁵ or the measurement of postprandial glucose metabolism. ⁶

Ultimately, our success will depend on the availability of the highest currency of all scientifically rigorous, innovative, and disease-relevant work that is worthy of review and publication. Armed with this resource, I am certain we can successfully navigate the Scylla of vanity publishing and the Charybdis of page charges while improving Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders over the coming years.