Last month Optometry and Vision Science was represented at the Annual Meeting of the Council of Scientific Editors (CSE). The CSE aims to “improve communication in the sciences by educating authors, editors, and publishers… … and by promoting effective communication practices.” Among the topics discussed at this year's meeting were on-line publishing, guidelines for authors, impact factors, and copyright law. The conference is highly recommended for anyone involved in the editorial and publishing process. The road to publication in a peer-reviewed journal is not always a straight one. There are anticipated curves, unexpected bumps, and the occasional U-turn. Nonetheless, an author who demonstrates good scholarship, execution, and exposition can reasonably expect that his or her work will appear in print. Attainment of this goal is usually marked by a letter of acceptance from the editor. This signifies that the peer-review process is complete and all of the appropriate parties have agreed that the article should be published. One of the guiding principles of this process is that an editor should never reject or pull an article for arbitrary or capricious reasons. The only reasons that an article, once accepted for publication, should later be withdrawn are when the editor receives evidence of scientific misconduct, e.g., plagiarism, fraud, or breach of human or animal subject guidelines. Last December, the journal received a call from an author who had fallen victim to an editorial bait and switch. He had submitted a manuscript which had been reviewed, revised, and accepted for publication. He had approved the galley proofs and then, less than 1 month from scheduled publication, he was told that the article would not be published due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter. The content of this so-called controversial study is not important. What is important is the issue of editorial integrity. Editors of society journals, those owned by professional or scientific organizations, are sometimes placed in a difficult position, or even displaced. Although such journals exist to disseminate scientific information among the organization's members, the parent society may find itself in the midst of a turf battle or some other form of professional strife. In these situations the editor may feel overt or subtle pressure. It was only last year that George Lundberg was fired as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association for publishing an article on college students’ perspectives on sex at the time of the proposed impeachment of President Clinton by the United States Congress. The AMA's Chief Executive Officer said that Lundberg had “inexcusably” interjected the journal into “the middle of a debate that has nothing to do with science or medicine.” In the past 2 years, no issue in optometry has caused more spirited discussion than the establishment of the American Board of Optometric Practice. By the time this editorial reaches the readers of Optometry and Vision Science, the matter will have been debated for a second time in the American Optometric Association's House of Delegates. As a precursor to this debate, Optometry: The Journal of the American Optometric Association published an article providing justification for and details of the proposed program of board certification in its April 2000 issue. A paper addressing the historical, organizational, and philosophical issues relating to board certification and presenting the case against the proposed process was prepared by the Board of Directors of the National Board of Examiners in Optometry. The article was submitted and accepted for publication in the May 2000 issue of Optometry. On April 17, 2000 the Editor of Optometry notified the National Board that the article would not be published as previously agreed. The reason given was that the Editor believed that a longer version of the article had already received wide distribution and that publishing this article would be redundant. The above editorial decision highlights the pressures that arise when political agendas are prioritized at the expense of journalistic integrity. Was the organization's cause furthered by this action? Was the reputation of the optometric profession advanced by this action? We would hypothesize that both were likely hindered. The decision to pull, what we believe to be a considered and scholarly treatise of the issues, may have undermined support of the AOA's position and increased the momentum of those taking the opposing view. Either way, the AOA's action has severely compromised the journalistic integrity of its principal publication. Optometry faces a number of important issues, such as co-management and the use of lasers, that we believe should be discussed at the national level. Deliberation and resolution of these issues can only be adequately achieved if the debate is open and free from censorship.
Bullimore et al. (Thu,) studied this question.