HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Golub, S. H. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Golub, S. H.

Electronic Darwinism

Readers may remember that last July The FASEB Journal launched a rapid publish-before-print model, FJ Express, for some of its original research submissions. This approach was one of a variety of electronic publishing models emerged recently as medical journals began posting articles on their websites in order to disseminate the results of current studies as quickly as possible.

Approaches to online publishing vary greatly in terms of manuscript preparation and on-line presentation. Some journals post articles immediately after peer-review acceptance, some after being peer reviewed and lightly edited, some without any review or editing; some publish online and in print simultaneously. A few journals have the authors post their own manuscripts; some journals have their articles appear on the screen unformatted or formatted; some appear with links and others without links; some appear with figures and tables embedded in the article or at the end. Some online publications appear free of charge months after the printed version has appeared. Others are included with a print subscription, and some are charged separately.

Is there one ideal method for online publication of biomedical research articles? Perhaps there is a single best method, but more likely there are several distinct forms of electronic publication that are preferable, depending on the type of material being published, the stringency of the peer review, whether the journal is of general interest or aimed at sub-specialists, the availability of libraries to the reader, and other factors. Readers of the scientific literature will evaluate these presentations. In this era of electronic scientific literature, the greater the variety of choices, the more diverse the formats and financial models, the greater is the probability of finding new ways to meet the needs of the scientific community. As in most biological systems, diversity is not only strength, but also an important element in the ability to adapt to the future.

Several features distinguish FJE’s electronic style including rapid online publication of full-length articles, separate formats for onscreen viewing and printing, and summaries for each online manuscript that feature a schematic diagram illustrating the essence of the research. This innovative approach is the creation of editor-in-chief Vincent T. Marchesi, and he deserves great credit for having a clear vision of what scientists need and how to provide it. The summaries appear in the journal’s print edition two months after the articles are posted; they direct the reader to the online, version-of-record article. These summaries are much more than the standard abstract, as they provide a concise statement of the context of the study and its implications as well as the key experimental findings. As such, they are particularly well suited to a multidisciplinary journal where readers are looking for a broad array of topics. In addition to the unique summary format, FJE offers readers attractive and readable choices of one- and two-column PDF files for its full- length peer-reviewed studies. Thus, the FJE format provides rapidity of publication along with completeness of the supporting data and outreach to interested scientists in related fields.

When the journal promoted FJE, it promised authors a four-week turnaround from acceptance to publication, a promise it kept for the first several months after launch. Then word spread, and more authors requested the express mode of publishing. An unexpected backlog of FJE manuscripts built quickly, and you are seeing the results of that in this issue of the journal. This format was borne out of the necessity to meet our commitment to rapid online publication.

We are pleased with the positive reception FJE has received; it indicates that this new format is meeting the goals that Dr. Marchesi set for it—rapid publication without compromising appearance or completeness in a form appropriate to a multidisciplinary journal. The balance in the content in this month’s issue of the FASEB Journal illustrates the dramatic demand this type of publishing has engendered. From a modest beginning of six articles last summer (with corresponding summaries in September’s print journal), the May issue contains more than 40 summaries, which correspond to articles posted on FJ’s website in March. Thanks to a tireless and devoted effort by journal’s publication staff, we were able to fulfill its promise of publishing quickly and created this major change in content. Next month’s issue will contain a similar mix of summaries (approximately 30) and full-length articles (about 7), and the balance in content will continue to fluctuate from month to month as authors and editor choose the format best suited to the work. We believe that this flexibility is necessary in order to compete in this ever more-complex electronic world of publishing.

Is there a better way of doing this? The answer will be found by doing what scientists do best—experimenting. We hope there will evolve a diversity of electronic formats and models, as we are confident that the marketplace will determine which of these varieties will find a niche that serves authors and readers alike. In publishing scientific information, as in the evolution of species, natural selection is ever present. The evolution of species has given us the bumblebee and the blue whale, and we should expect that the evolution of electronic scientific publishing would also produce very different solutions to different problems. It seems unlikely to us that any one model will be ideal for the specialized needs of all medical and research, or that any one group of editors and publishers will be able to devise a format that will be perfect for all publications. ‘One size fits all’ is incompatible with ‘survival of the fittest’.

How does changing the content of the journal affect our readers? We would like to know what you are thinking as you thumb through this issue. Please click on the feedback button at the journal’s website (http:www.fasebj.org) to let us know what we are doing right and what we need to improve in order to us decide what next steps to take to make this new format appealing and valuable to experimental biologists worldwide. The readers are the selective pressure that should, and will, determine the direction of our future evolution.

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Golub, S. H. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Golub, S. H.