|
WHAT'S THIS?
|
VIEWPOINTS << Interview with Trish Groves
|
An interview with Trish Groves
Published 8 May 2009
Trish Groves is deputy editor, BMJ
What does your job involve?
As well as my general deputy editor role, I head the BMJ’s research team. I’m responsible for the BMJ’s strategy and policy on research, for representing the BMJ’s research profile in the world (for instance, through membership of the council of the Committee on Publication Ethics [COPE]), and for people management within the research team.
But there’s plenty of hands on work too, and I make decisions on a lot of research papers. I’m involved at both ends of the process. At the screening stage, I’m one of three editors who decide whether to send for external peer review those papers that have survived initial appraisal by one of the daily duty research editors. And I often chair the weekly manuscript meeting, where we decide which of the best peer reviewed papers to accept.
Around 4000 original research papers come in each year to our online office (submit.bmj.com), and we accept around 250. At each stage we have our readers’ needs in mind. We’re looking for the papers that are most likely to help doctors to make better decisions in clinical practice, research, policy making, or education. This means rejecting a lot of well conducted but less actionable science, and we aim to screen out those manuscripts quickly so we don’t waste authors’ and reviewers’ time. It’s my job to ensure that the team makes decisions that are consistent and fair.
How did you get to where you are?
I was heading for a life as a consultant psychiatrist, via medical school at the Royal Free in London and then postgraduate training in psychiatry in London and Berkshire. But I always had a passion for communication, and while studying for MRCPsych I co-wrote a book for patients and relatives: the HarperCollins Consumer Guide to Psychiatry. Then, while looking in the BMJ’s classified ads for the consultant training scheme I wanted in Oxford, I spotted an ad to spend a year at the BMJ learning about writing, editing, and peer review. I thought “sounds great, and it’s only for a year”. That was 20 years ago. Since then I’ve headed every section of the journal at one time or another, and the work and the people have made it a very hard place to leave.
What do you enjoy most and least about your job?
I enjoy travelling world wide to meet authors and readers, to promote the BMJ, and to speak on research and publication ethics. And I love being part of the BMJ’s unique mix of journalism and medicine. In an average week I’ll be juggling the appraisal of a bunch of research papers, updating our advice to authors, approving the contents and cover picture of the weekly print issue, writing a blog or editorial, helping to decide what news and comment to commission, discussing what to highlight on bmj.com, and moderating and posting Rapid Responses (eletters).
3. What are your top 5 favourite online resources?
bmj.com, obviously. And, as a news junkie, I’m always checking the BBC, Guardian, New York Times and, often, the Times of India (a terrific resource). You said favourite. If you’d said useful, I’d have listed the websites of NEJM, JAMA, Lancet, and PLoS Medicine, EQUATOR, and COPE. But that’s more than 5.
What are the most important issues in publication planning – past 5 years, present, future?
Transparency is the key: Past 5 years: clinical trial registration. Present: posting online of trial results. Future: even greater transparency - sharing of raw data (within constraints of academic and commercial sensitivity and, most importantly, patient confidentiality), of statistical codes, and of the full details of interventions so they can be replicated and implemented.
What are the challenges in deciding authorship of papers reporting large, multicentre studies with many investigators?
The ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) criteria for authorship are far from perfect, so the BMJ also asks for contributorship statements for each research paper to explain exactly who did what. But being an author is still an essential intellectual contribution, and the authors’ byline remains paramount because of the way articles are indexed and searched for. The biggest challenge is for the authors and sponsors of research – they should decide who should (and shouldn’t) be an author at the protocol stage and in what order they should appear in the byline. COPE and individual editors can advise authors on getting this right from the start and on how to solve disputes, and – when warranted – editors can refuse to publish articles where authorship isn’t agreed.
The BMJ hopes to see more company statisticians and publication planners listed as authors if they’ve fulfilled the ICMJE criteria for authorship. And we hope the days are long gone when industry drafted in key opinion leaders at the end to give a paper kudos.
Have publication planners got the balance right between ethics and the commercial needs of the pharma industry? Do journal Editors have the right balance between ethics, needs of their readers and the commercial needs of their journal?
I don’t know enough to answer the first part of the question. But I’ve been heartened, when speaking at publication planning meetings eg at DIA, TIPPA, and ISMPP conferences, by the professionalism and commitment to transparency and ethics of many planners.
Regarding editors; we’re a very mixed bag. The large journals that belong to ICMJE spend much time and resource on developing, implementing, and promoting policies on research and publication ethics (regarding authors’ and reviewers’ behaviour) and editorial ethics (regarding the ethical conduct of these people and bodies: editors, editorial boards, advertising teams, publishers, and owners). So do organisations such as COPE, WAME, CSE, and ISMPP. But smaller journals may not always be aware of policies and rules, and may also find it harder to implement them because they are less able to lay down the law to owners, authors, societies, and advertisers.
Does the future lie with online journals or will print journals continue to dominate for the foreseeable future?
Online journals are appearing and developing all the time, and readers and authors are getting used to the idea of online publication being definitive, particularly for research papers.
bmj.com is in many ways ahead of the pack; not least by deliberately flipping the model so that all content appears online before print and isn’t driven by print-driven policies, formats, and priorities. We have videos, podcasts, bogs and rapid responses, and links to doc2doc, the new BMJGroup doctors’ professional networking site.
But even the younger, tech-minded readers tell us they still read the print BMJ every weekend, in preference to bmj.com. And it’s an uphill job to encourage readers to use journal websites as they use other sites ie going there to browse and catch up. Most readers still come to see specific articles, either because they’ve found them via a search or have seen them in the print journal and want to get the full version, and/or the web extras. Getting them to come specially and to stay for a while is an interesting and important challenge.
What changes in publication planning practice and journal policies would help to achieve timely and high quality publications?
We all appreciate timeliness and high quality. I can’t think of any specific new policies to achieve these things more effectively. In any case, there are plenty of existing policies and practices that aren’t always read, understood, and implemented. Let’s crack that nut first.
How will posting of clinical trial results on registries affect journal publications?
This shouldn’t lessen the chances of publication, at least not in journals that belong to ICMJE - including the BMJ – nor in journals that follow ICMJE’s Uniform Requirements for Biomedical Publications. ICMJE stated clearly in summer 08 that posting of trial results in accordance with the FDA Amendment Act wouldn’t amount to prior publication. The launch in February 2009 of mandatory registration and results posting of EU paediatric trials at the EudraCT registry hasn’t had much publicity however, and ICMJE hasn’t made any statement about that yet. But the same policy about publication should apply there too.
Is 'marketing' a dirty word in relation to publication planning?
It needn’t be, as long as the marketing is honest and truthful and doesn’t go beyond the data. Studies that have looked at biased reporting of pharma study results show that papers are getting much more truthful, so that’s a good sign that marketing isn’t muscling in like it used to.
|
Feedback: Do you have any comments about this article? Contact the Publisher, Peter Llewellyn.
|
|
|
