PEPonline
Professionalization of Exercise Physiologyonline

An international electronic
journal for exercise physiologists
ISSN 1099-5862

Vol 5 No 1 January 2002

 

Electronic Publishing: A Call for Support from Exercise Physiologists
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, FASEP, EPC
Professor and Chair, Department of Exercise Physiology
Director of Exercise Physiology Laboratories
The College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811


Although little direct information has been written on the value of research in exercise physiology, it is common knowledge that scholarly communications are important.   Most exercise physiologists publish in a variety of print-copy journals.  They are like other members of the scientific community who understand that publishing is important to advancing knowledge.  They also understand that research is important to securing promotion and tenure and, yes, scholarly publications also build resumes and help access grants and funding.

It should come as no surprise that ASEP as a professional society of exercise physiologists has made a significant effort to push exercise physiology into electronic publishing.  After nearly four years of work on behalf of the ASEP editorial staff, both research articles and articles about professionalism have been peer-reviewed and published without charge.  From the beginning, the goal was to make available a wide dissemination via the Internet with minimal time between submission and publication.  The editors have accomplished both objectives while also creating a major shift in the way exercise physiologists publish their work.  No longer do they have to submit to high-priced journals where the likelihood of acceptance outweighs the investment.

The major for-profit publishing houses have raised the peer-reviewed journals to a “cost factor” level that is almost out of the range of most researchers.  And, to make matters worst, a number of the not-for-profit publishers are doing the same [1].  Fortunately, the ASEP electronic journals are owned and published by ASEP that controls the financial arrangements and publishing affairs of the journals.  The journals are not about delivering profitable returns via subscription fees.  They function simply to publish exercise physiology manuscripts.  If the publishing of the articles helps academic exercise physiologists with promotion and/or tenure, so be it.  ASEP didn’t create the system, and it is not about to change the academic expectation of the system.

An interesting question and one that needs an answer is “Why are exercise physiologists as well as most other mainstream researchers reluctant to publish with free electronic-only journals?”  Perhaps, it is surprising but nonetheless correct that a publication is a publication just as a writer writes [2].  Since researchers are writers, what is written must be published.  The authors of a publication must have confidence in the publishing process.  The alternative to the traditional publication is the equally suitable electronic publication, which should come as no surprise to today’s researchers.  What is a surprise is the distinction between the two types of publication as if the electronic version is somehow less important or less valid.

The purpose of this article is not to demean the print copy publishers or to judge the editors.  The job of the journal editor is difficult and seldom appreciated.   The traditional approach to publishing is good, acceptable, and has its advantages.  However, there are several concerns.  In particular, a significant number of researchers question the peer-review process.  There is some indication that editors have too much power and, therefore, control what is published.  Authors believe that the review process is driven by unfair practices based on an out-dated approach to publishing.  Frequently, researchers conclude that the reviewers’ comments are too unstructured, too narrow, or simply too critical.  Improvements in the review process should have taken place years ago.  To suggest that a journal is peer-reviewed is not enough.  Everybody knows that too many reviewers are inexperienced with research methods as well as the knowledge that comes from years of doing research.  The publishing houses use these individuals because they offer their services with the expectation of benefiting in some way.  The benefit might be interpreted as an increased opportunity to publish one’s work in the journal.  There is also the increased likelihood that reviewers will eventually expect a fee for service.  This point of view might appear as pure speculation, but in reality it isn’t that farfetched.

Given that nothing is free, even the Internet, there is always the notion that the electronic gateway will expect the users to pay a fee.  What doesn’t have to happen is an authors’ fee and/or advertising income that is equivalent to the costs expected of for-profit publishers.  If researchers are required to pay something, it should be a reasonable fee for the processing and reviewing of the submissions to the journals.  Exactly what kind of a fee is a question that needs an answer.  What is important, where possible, is that no fee should be expected of authors.  In thinking about the Internet, it would benefit everybody if the shift from paper-copy to electronic-copy manuscripts do not have a cost-factor associated with it.  Similarly, there is the hopeful expectation that the increase in non-peered reviewed articles continue to be published on the Internet.  The idea of a significant increase in the number of unreviewed manuscripts may not be consistent with traditional thinking, but it is becoming reality where authors are given the “rights” to their original thinking without the reviewers’ comments.  In this regard, authors point out that the reviewers often don’t appear to understand the research design and/or conclusions since many reviewers are “freshmen PhDs” looking for the opportunity to move up the ladder of academia.  And, unless the editors of the various scientific journals understand this point, the process itself is designed to give power to the reviewers who aren’t as likely to know the research as well as the researchers. 

It is reasonable to believe that researchers understand their research and that they understand the opportunities provided by the electronic medium.  In short, papers are submitted and reviewed and, yes, for some electronic journals papers may be reviewed only at the editor-in-chief level.  Either the manuscripts are accepted with reservations, rejected without re-consideration, or given the possibility of being accepted for publication following careful and detailed revisions.  So, the question is, “What is the value in publishing electronically?”  First, to begin with, it is simply another opportunity to publish one’s work.  The option is no different from receiving a rejection from one print-copy journal where a revision and resubmission results in the publishing of the article in an entirely different journal.  Second, it is possible to do so without the inertia of big money and big business tied to the traditional publishing process.  Hence, given this particular view, it is no wonder that some researchers have created their own scientific journals via the Internet.  Familiar with the publishing process, most electronic publishers have also identified reviewers, and do exactly what the CEOs of major publishing companies have done for years.  What is different is that the research and the publication in the form of electronic articles reach the public sector in a much shorter time period.  This is considered a vital step in the right direction for all scientific writers.  And, it is likely that with even new technologies, there will be new forms of electronic publishing and new formats that will meet a variety of needs under different circumstances. 

For better or worse, (and I believe better), it is just a matter of time that the pioneering work by a few exercise physiologists with free electronic-only journals will become the “current mainstream” to scientific-publications.  Exercise physiologists, as well as other researchers, are moving to the electronic forum of publishing.  Like all new systems, there are problems and obstacles that must be worked out.  In particular, there is the question of distinguishing between the peer-reviewed article and the non-reviewed article.  Is there really a serious difference?  If so, what are the differences?  And, the question of whether it is necessary to use the traditional two or three reviewers in the assessment of a manuscript versus the capability of one professional (such as the dedicated editor) to oversee the publication of articles.  Second, there are simply not enough free electronic journals on the Internet.  Of course, the number will increase but until it does the service to the Internet readers needs significant improvement in more electronic journals.  Third, traditional print-copy publishers are looking to make money by continuing the subscriptions to their journal articles when placed online.  Making money via the Internet should not be the issue with exercise physiologists who create online journals.  There really isn’t any need to create a password or a costly subscription to access the articles. 

Researchers already have a significant time invested with the research process and the subsequent writing (and revisions) of a manuscript.  They shouldn’t have to struggle with the costs of paper-based journals to locate relevant conference papers and peer-reviewed articles.  Also, the pay per view approach to access an article is really an unnecessary burden to an Internet medium that is frequently defined as the information superhighway.  The fact that important articles cannot be accessed in a timely fashion unless paid for is a big drawback to paper-based journals that have the look-alike and feel of free electronic journals.  And yet, this shouldn’t be the case when researchers actually provide the product (i.e., the manuscript).  This point itself is confusing.  Here, we have the researchers creating the product for publishing houses that do not financially reward them.  The idea is, if the work is worthy of being published, then that should be a sufficient reward.  In the academic realm, this has been accepted.  No one of course would accept such an idea in the business world. 

Professionals who work in the business community understand that when work is done, those who did the work should be rewarded.  The financial reward should not go to someone else.  Of course, this is both the reason for traditional paper journals not wanting to create free electronic journals and the reason they are in the business of publishing in the first place.  The idea is still reasonable and there is the person’s right to sell products for a financial gain.  That is why the traditional print-copy journals will continue alongside the slow to develop free Internet journals.  Even with the dramatic changes in the way information is exchanged via the Internet, the financial share of electronic journals published by societies, colleges, and universities is small and will be for some time to come.  What is clear is that the founders of these journals are not in the business of marketing and distributing manuscripts through the Internet to make money.  Many researchers log-on to the Internet to access data repositories on a regular basis and, thus access to papers published in the scientific journals is increasingly becoming an expected reality. They expect to read full texts articles that are freely accessible. 

It should also be clear by now that ASEP is not in the Internet business to make money or to down play the acknowledged strengths of the current system of published work.  The present understanding of the integrity of today’s journals offers the readership the feeling of “what is timely and appropriate for the profession.”  There really isn’t any question about this point.  However, part of the purpose of this article is to suggest that the perceived hierarchy of the traditional process of publishing and the associated journals may have created an idea that is not an absolute.  That is, the quality of published articles from within the pages of different journals may very well be essentially the same even if the traditional conferring process isn’t used.  Hence, the proposal is that a new way of thinking about electronic publication in the United States and abroad may very well constitute a flexibility and an evolution in publishing that is more suitable to researchers than ever before believed.  But, there are some concerns.  In fact, as a publishers of two electronic journals plus the electronic ASEPNewsletter, ASEP  has met some challenging times.  The obvious challenge has been the time invested in securing manuscripts and other documents, following the tradition steps in publishing, and the development of dedicated websites.  The latter is particularly time consuming since it requires a knowledge of Internet website skills.  Time is also invested in the URL linking, storage, and retrieval of documents where necessary.  To do these things in-house (i.e., to do so often in addition to one’s regular responsibilities), is without question a paradigm shift in publishing for exercise physiologists. 

The single most important understanding of the new thinking that has emerged with electronic publishing is speed.  Flexibility is important as well as simplicity.  But, to find relevant articles without waiting a lifetime is critical to timely research and publishing.  ASEP is part of the new way of thinking that believes the purpose of a journal is to disseminate information.  It is about making information available to the readers via easily accessible websites.  Moreover, it is about providing information about related journal articles that are electronically accessible via hyperlinks, databases, and websites.  Like all new ideas and concepts, there is a period of time that is necessary to understand the contradictions with traditional thinking about print-copy publishing.  As an interesting parallel in where electronic publishing is today, Wells [3] reported 387 free electronic scientific journals in 1999.  Because of the work that is involved in developing, maintaining, and update web pages for many of these journals, there is a high mortality rate.  That is, those who were initially interested in creating electronic journals may have failed to understand the work required to keep the journals up and running.  They may also have worked at an institution where the journal was discontinued or, perhaps, the founder of the journal moved to a different place of employment. 

For a list of electronic journals, refer to the NewJour website (4).  Note that JEPonline and PEPonline are both listed with the NewJour website and, just recently, JEPonline has been listed with numerous other electronic sites.  There are a variety of other ways in which the journals are marketed without costs to ASEP and/or the institution that provides its server.  As the contact page highlights, the electronic journals are an integral part of the ASEP organization even though it is obvious that researchers (in general) are biased towards print-copy publishers when submitting manuscripts.  This doesn’t mean, however, that researchers aren’t interested in getting scientific information where possible.  Rather, in face of a relative small number of all researchers incline to publish electronically, a much larger number of researchers are willing to use electronic manuscripts in their research analysis and manuscript preparation.   They understand that like all ideas that take time, it is the same for electronic publishing.  So, after a few years, authors across the spectrum of science are likely to acknowledge that electronic publications are as prestigious as publishing print-copy journals.   In fact, there are strong indications that this is already true and why not since the manuscripts, for the most part, are peer-reviewed.  The issue here is not that the medium per se, but the professionals who are identified with it.  For reasons that most readers should understand, there aren’t a lot of differences among the majority of professionals who do research and publish.  The quality and quantity of their work is more a function of motivation and opportunity than intelligence.  These factors have been ignored far too long.

Equally revealing is the inertia of the academic guidelines for promotion and tenure.  Determining which journal is the best journal to publish in while others remain suspect is an out-dated idea.  What should be important is the work it takes to get a manuscript written and accepted for publication.  Also important is (or should be) the turnaround time from submission to publication.  Here, the Internet is “the” logical course of action to make distance around the world and differences in beliefs nearly irrelevant.  Other considerations include the relevant readership, whether the journal is indexed, multi-media capability, archiving of journal issues, and whether there are several modes of publishing the same article in addition to the screen readable HTML format.  For example, is the same article published in the printable PDF version or can it be downloaded and printed using a link to a Microsoft Word document?  Further still, is the article available via CD-ROM or floppy disc?  Here again, since each of these factors is usually in place with electronic publishing, the motivation to publish can be as it should be – “to disseminate knowledge”.  Offering the scientific community free and full access to current and hard-copy archive of research articles has changed the way scientists communicate with each other.   In turn, there is the expectation that electronic publishing will become a recognized system for disseminating, storing, and retrieving of scientific information.

Set against this backdrop, electronic publishing is likely to revolutionize the reporting of research data and findings.  In time, it is also likely that the Internet will become the new library with a 24-7 option for accessing scientific knowledge.   And, as members of ASEP, exercise physiologists are part of the first-ever scientific journals via the Internet that allows researchers from around the world to exchange findings and archive articles that will be used for decades to come.  Hence, those who have published their work in the ASEP journals will become recognized as the first among their colleagues.  Researchers who understand the role of publishing will also come to understand the role that electronic publishing will play in seeking jobs, grants, tenure, and promotion.  It will become the same as today’s thinking with traditional print-copy publishers.  And, as a result, the proliferation of new scientific knowledge and the new electronic medium will challenge the traditional paper publishing industry to create more flexible options for publishing, including but not limited to, a reduction in page charges, subscription fees, and a host of other commercially induced financial considerations.  These developments highlight the virtues and the appropriateness of electronic publishing.

Just as scholarly print-copy journals have flourished as a way to communicate findings to colleagues and gain validation through peer review, electronic journals will do the same.  Reputations will be built on the Internet and precedents will be set with one’s work.  Electronic indexes will encourage the citing of past work available for retrieval as HTML, Portable Document Format (pd), or whatever format of choice is used years from now. It is as inevitable as it is right.  Researchers who understand this point also understand that the Internet is here to stay, and they see it as a proven medium for worldwide communication.  Those who fail to appreciate the Internet’s preservability and readability will come to understand that it is as reliable and rigorous as traditional publishing.  Exercise physiologists, in particular, will have to come to terms that the integrity of the electronic medium is consistent with print-copy publications.  It is simply a matter of alternative thinking that allows researchers to publish faster with less overall financial burden.  Commercial publishers, those who destined to remain predominately print-copy publishers with parallel electronic versions of journal articles can’t read this battle between which is better, particularly if the motive is to continue with subscriptions, log-on pass words, or contractual agreements to access Internet articles.  Their take on how to counter the electronic-free journals is fundamentally a major mistake in 21st century thinking. 

The stunning amount of research online demonstrates the potential of electronic publishing.  The Internet is the backyard of the exercise physiologists who have come to expect access to published articles.  They have also come to expect that the print-copy publications are credible, and will learn the same about the non-traditional peer review journals.  The notion of a spirited distinction between the two mediums is arguably without merit.  Any decline in the standards of electronic publishing compared to print-copy publishing could only be independent of the medium and thus not a function of cyberspace.  And, in short, how can indexing be a problem as long as researchers are able to connect with the Internet using an article-specific URL.  Mike Sosteric [4] said it best: 

“As we can see, the traditional publishers are trying to convince us of the impossibility of providing an alternative publication system by insisting on our inability to achieve rigorous publication, by decrying our motivation, by accusing us of sloppy writing habits, by suggesting that we cannot market our own information, and by generally painting us as amateurs and dilettantes.  As I have attempted to demonstrate, the arguments are based on biases and misunderstandings of the dynamics and power of electronic publication.”
It is within our power as exercise physiologists to add significantly to the system of scholarly communication.  The cyber publication is a reality and with it is the potential to provide professional services to profit the professional development of exercise physiology.  There is evidence that electronic journals are not only widely read, but are extremely important in a variety of professional activities.  The electronic scholarly journals are read for research and/or teaching.  The impact of the increasing amount of knowledge via the Internet is yet to be fully understood.  What should be clear is that the production and distribution of scholarly articles are important to the strategic plans for the emerging profession. 


References
1. Caelleigh, A. S. (2000). PubMed Central and the New Publishing Landscape. Academic Medicine. 75: 4-10.
2. Boone, T. (2001). The Academic Profession: The Research Obligation. [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/TheResearchObligation.html
3. Wells, A. (1999). Exploring the development of the independent, electronic, scholarly journal M.Sc. in Information Management, Electronic Dissertations Library, Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield, UK. [Online]. http://panizzi.shef.ac.uk/elecdiss/ed10001/index.html 
4. Sosteric, M. (1996). Electronic Journals: The Grand Information Future? Electronic Journal of Sociology. [Online]. http://www.sociology.org/content/vol002.002/sosteric.html

 


Copyright ©1997-2007 American Society of Exercise Physiologists   All Rights Reserved.