Moses's Bronze Serpent
Mauricio Goihman-Yahr
Dermatology Online Journal 14 (7): 18

It is told in the book of Numbers that along their way through the wilderness, the Israelites were bitten by fiery serpents. Moses fashioned a bronze serpent that he put on a standard. If anyone was bitten by a serpent, he could look at the bronze one and live.

The metal reptile is not mentioned again until centuries later, in the book of Kings. It is told, that the serpent, named Nehushtan, was smashed by King Hezekiah because the Israelites had offered sacrifices to it.

Historians and theologians may argue about why Moses would fashion a metal snake in apparent disregard of the prohibition against graven images. They may also ponder on the relationships between the tribe of Levi (to which Moses and Aaron belonged) and snakes. The rod of Aaron became a snake that swallowed others in a famous episode. The primeval serpent Leviathan had the root "Levi" in its name.

My point is quite different and much simpler. No matter how hallowed in its origin or useful at a given time, if a structure, organization, or set of procedures ceases to be functional or becomes actually abhorrent to the philosophy that governs its actions, the structure or organization in question should be drastically revamped and, if necessary, smashed, as was Nehushtan.

The process of scientific publication is indeed a hallowed procedure. One cannot imagine the existence of modern science without publication. Its progress has been amazing indeed. Learned societies used to meet and members would personally present their results or findings. This is the original meaning of "Transactions" or "Comptes Rendus." Some would write up the presentations and circulate them among members. From this artisanal origin, dating back only a couple of centuries ago, there is now a dizzying difference. Today, sophisticated technological resources are put into play in order to disseminate information to the scientific community. A great variety of sources from the standard paper journal, periodical pages, or "letters," web pages or web journals, to compact disks and DVDs bombard the prospective recipient either softly as snow flakes or harshly as hail. It is easy to predict that technology will bring even greater progress in the near future. One can even enter a manuscript into to some gadget or website and have the manuscript sent immediately (including translation if necessary) to an editorial office, which in turn forwards it directly to editors or referees. Regrettably, the ideal technique, communication by means of telepathy, may still lie far ahead.

The problems are not technological; they lie within the scope of human behavior and legal structures. All depends on the model that is currently followed, the American one.

Under the current model, a piece of research or development of a technique is carried out by a researcher and his team or by a group of researchers. The results are written up and submitted to a journal. The Editor then directs it to a group of referees who suggest whether the paper has interest or not and also point out the weak points or errors of the manuscript. The Editor makes a decision and notifies the author. The paper may be accepted as is (an unusual occurrence) or alterations are recommended (in which case the paper may be resubmitted) or it is rejected. In the latter case the author may bow his head in desperation or start the process all over to some other journal. This can be repeated several times until the author gives up or (more likely) finds a journal that will carry the opus in question. All is done under an honor system. The referees do not get paid for their efforts and are supposed to be fair and diligent even if the manuscript scoops an idea that they had or is written by a personal enemy. The author should have written the truth, as much of the whole truth as can be handled and nothing but the truth. The Editor is a God-like figure of integrity and unerring ability to detect and even extract worthwhile findings and the reader (or viewer or listener) will get the distillate of true knowledge that is needed to further progress.

Strange as it may seem, the model worked reasonably well until such time as 3 variants came together. Namely: 1) economic forces, 2) bureaucracy and 3) legalism (as opposed to lawfulness).

1) Publishing became not a means but an end: a business, not to promote knowledge, but to make money. This is not necessarily by sales as such, but by advertisements (money making and promotion of knowledge may go together but that is not always the case). Scientific journals do not usually pay the authors (as they surely should), but those whose papers are printed reap benefits from the "publish or perish" philosophy. Promotions or tenure depend on publications, not necessarily on their quality, but on their number or on an aberration made possible by computers, which makes scientific quality a function of the number of authors that cite a given article.

2) Rules and guidelines are meant to facilitate and improve the process of evaluation. Yet, when they become rigid and held as sacrosanct, they turn into a hindrance. As an example, one of the most respected biomedical periodicals is The Journal of Immunology. In January 2008, information for authors ran for 9 printed pages. In addition, authors were instructed to go to a web page for the most up to date instructions and to file a submission form. I have intentionally chosen an example from a publication that is deservedly considered as a leader in its field.

3) Honor and fair play are a must in science, but currently scientific publications tend to follow Julius Caesar's admonitions to his wife. She must not only be virtuous, but also seem that way. Periodicals ask authors to precisely define and limit their publishable work. They have to disclose whether there is or not the semblance of monetary interest in the subject of the paper. The Journal of Immunology (again) states that because it employs page charges, articles will be labeled as "advertisements" solely to indicate this fact.

Much more could be written but the main issues have been stated. What should be done? In my opinion, Nehushtan should not yet be smashed, but worshipping it should stop. Here are a few ideas:

• Citation Indexes may be used for information, but not to grade individual authors or journals.
• Purely commercial journals delving on medical subjects may be legitimate, but they should show their own colors. Mast head make-up and figure-head Editors-in-Chief must cease.
• Authors should be allowed latitude in their writing and presentation of their data. Uniformity is not a virtue.
• The author is the guarantor of the truth of information presented. The journals should exercise judgment and may ask pertinent questions. Their role, however, is not that of investigative agencies.
• Duplicate publication is a sin, but not so duplicate or multiple submissions. No journal should have the right to hold a manuscript for weeks or months without a decision. One may not hold several jobs simultaneously, but any job seeker may fill and does fill several applications.
• Referees should be paid for their efforts. Authors should not be informed of the referees' identity but should be allowed to ask about their qualifications.
• Dividing journals into "listed" and "unlisted" ones, was amply justified when capacity of computers was small and a selection had to be made. Nowadays and in the future this is ridiculous. Information is information. All journals of all languages should be listed. Let the reader make up his own mind on the value of their contents.
• It is a travesty of justice that for copyright reasons, an author has to make requests for permission to use his own tables or illustrations for other publications. Copyright should only cover the right of reproduction or distribution for commercial purposes.
• Authors should not be expected to pay page charges unless the journal belongs to a not-for-profit organization. In other circumstances authors should be paid for their accepted papers. If quality, instead of number of publications were to be used for promotions, then journals would surely have less of a backlog.

In conclusion: let us fix the publication process before it becomes imperative to smash it.

© 2008 Dermatology Online Journal