Blog

Raising Concerns About Podiatry Submissions For An Orthopedic Journal

11/09/2016

I heard the rumors firsthand from podiatric physicians whom I respect that a leading orthopedic journal denies article submissions by podiatric physicians solely based on credentials, not content. Rejections were occurring the day after article submission.

I was trying to decide where to submit an article on neuromas for publication. I had never published in the aforementioned orthopedic journal before so that was the publication I choose. The article examines histological changes of surgically excised neuromas, comparing the differences between those treated with alcohol sclerosing injections and those treated with steroid injections. One of my co-authors is a pathologist so I thought this would open the door to publishing in this orthopedic journal. I happened to be lecturing at the Iowa Podiatric Medical Society Heartland Foot and Ankle Conference on a Thursday and finished the article submission process that evening.

I wake up Friday morning to an email rejection letter from that journal, less than 24 hours after my submission. Not only was the article rejected but there was also an accusation of plagiarism. I use grammar and plagiarism checking programs for everything I write. I ran the article through the program and the following phrases were considered unoriginal content.

"is most commonly seen in the third intermetatarsal space"

"the bottom of their foot or a feeling of walking on a rolled-up or wrinkled sock”

"The purpose of this study is to observe”

"There have been several published studies on the”

I sent a reply email to the editor arguing the plagiarism charges and voicing my concerns on what I had been hearing from my colleagues. The editor apologized and noted an error in the software that analyzed the article. He promised to run the article through the usual blind submission process. I will gladly accept the judgment of a blinded review. I await the final decision.

My experience combined with research on a soon to be published article raised concerns about the journal impact factor ratings for the podiatric profession’s two primary peer-reviewed journals — the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association (JAPMA) and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery (JFAS) — in comparison to the aforementioned orthopedic journal. Journal impact factor ratings are “the number of citations of a journal’s material in the preceding two-year period divided by the number of citable materials (source items) published by that same journal within the same period.’’¹ Journal impact factor ratings are not without detractors but it is an objective methodology to compare journals. The 2015 ratings for JFAS, JAPMA and the orthopedic journal in question are 1.066, 0.574 and 1.896.^2-3

I subsequently evaluated the orthopedic journal’s 2016 issues ranging from January to November. The journal has published 170 articles year to date with 4,922 citations. I recorded any citations or articles from primarily podiatric journals (JFAS or JAPMA), Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, or podiatric textbooks. The number of podiatric citations equaled 212. The percentage of podiatric citations was 4.31 percent. The total number of MD/DO/Other and DPM article authors respectively were 887 and four. The percentage of podiatric article authors in the orthopedic journal equaled 0.45 percent. One author accounted for three of the four podiatric article authors with the fourth being in the same group. For reference, there are approximately 2,200 foot and ankle orthopedic surgeons and 13,000 podiatric physicians in the United States.^4,5

I am in the process of examining the 2016 data from JFAS to compare with the orthopedic journal data and I will add in the December data for the orthopedic journal as well in next month’s blog. I am not a conspiracy theorist but less than 0.5 percent of published podiatric authors in 2016, less than 5 percent of podiatric literature citations in the 2016 articles in this orthopedic journal, reports of subsequent day rejection of podiatric authored articles, and my experience with a less than 12-hour rejection with a redacted claim of plagiarism do raise concern.

The disappointing aspect is there are plenty of patients for both foot and ankle orthopedic surgeons and podiatric physicians. We should be working together to raise the bar of foot and ankle evidence-based medicine to benefit patients, not delegitimizing research and intentionally influencing journal impact factor ratings by not citing one group peer-reviewed published literature and not publishing high-quality studies based solely on the letters after the author’s name. The facts may be leading us down a pathway that appears to be concerning. The question is what do we do about it?

References