Quality in science publishing

Abstract

for biomedical journals. MEPS itself operates under a model that has many of these elements. While views on future prospects in electronic and 'open access' publishing differ, there is consensus on the continuing need for an effective peer review sys-tem, to control and enhance the quality of the pub-lished product and to help scientists identify articles that are worth reading. Electronic publishing has made it simple for scientists to instantaneously dissem-inate their work across the globe, but readers must be wary of work that has not been peer-reviewed prior to publication. Paradoxically, if scientists choose to pub-lish their work on the internet, without submission to a recognized journal, they may never reach their intended audience if that audience prefers to scan tables of journal contents each month rather than sift through the results of internet searches that produce irreproducible (over time) results. Unquestionably, as a distribution medium, the internet is unrivalled. What we see in the essays that follow is that the process of quality enhancement through peer review, and the collection of related papers into journal form (whether in print or online), is still respected; any new techno-logical development(s) in science publishing should serve rather than subvert this process. We hope that readers find these essays thought pro-voking, and that this TS will increase our profession's resolve towards producing and maintaining the high-est standard of quality in science publishing, at all def-initional levels. We have thoroughly enjoyed putting it together and are grateful to the contributors for their thoughtful and eloquent essays.