“A process full of shortcomings”

The primary aim of a research study is to get the results published. But it is a process full of shortcomings, according to Per Aspenberg, one of LIU’s most prolific authors, who also knows the world of journals inside out.

Per Aspenberg, professor of Orthopaedics, has published some 250 articles and is cited over 500 times a year. He also works as editor of the journal Acta Ortopaedica.

“There are different ways of looking at this work. I see Acta Ortopaedica as a scientific news magazine, whereas a lot of other journals see themselves as courts of science. This leads to a completely different way of approaching the editing process,” he says.

The news aspect is strong among the most influential journals today. The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine favours articles that might be expected to bring maximum attention or contributions that punctuate a drawn out debate.

Aspenberg himself is particularly fond of research results produced with simple tools, for example a study by Christer Brönmark, the ecologist from Lund, published in Science 1992. It showed that the crucian carp develop a higher back, and hence become more difficult to catch, if a pike is put into their pond.

“An elegant study where a fishing net and a ruler were all the equipment needed. I try to keep as close to this principal as possible. It’s the issues studied that are the most fun, not expensive machines,” Aspenberg says.

As editor, he takes part in deciding what is published, both by directly turning down approximately every other manuscript sent in, and through the choice of scientific referee. This can create a division skewed in favour of very narrow areas of study.

“For example if someone sends us a manuscript about the nail of the big toe, there are very few referees for us to choose among. The big toenail specialist we give the job to is then really happy to see an article within his or her very specialised field and recommends publication.

Being appointed as a referee is seen as an honour and there is no remuneration. Most journals today are owned by big publishing houses who rake in tidy profits. The business idea of using free labour and then taking significant payment for both the printed editions and web licences is a great success. And it is increasingly common for authors to pay to have their work published.

Acta Ortopaedica, which is operated on a non-profit basis by the Nordic Orthopaedic Federation, immediately publishes all the articles it accepts on the web and subsequently in print. The drawback of this is a low “impact factor” of 2.2 (the New England Journal of Medicine has a factor of 53.5).

“But we don’t care a whit about this. Researchers from every country except the USA still choose to publish with us. The Impact Factor system promotes opportunism and means everyone is running after the same ball.” Another measure of the worth of a scientific journal is whether its articles are cited over a longer period of time, and here Acta Ortopaedica is among the best.

Aspenberg’s own research is down-to-earth; despite having a small budget, it has produced many frequently cited results. But the beginning of his career was sluggish. His first article looked at leg growth in rats and was published in 1985 by Acta Anatomica, a ”rubbish journal” in the words of the author, adding that the article itself was not much better. This was while doing his postgraduate studies at Lund, where he was given a old, deserted lab to play in.

“Six years of bad work leading to a bad thesis. Then things got better.”

Now he can afford to offer advice to any young doctoral student with an urge to write:

“Write simply and deal with the most important thing first, just like the tabloids do. Go straight for the problem and lead the reader to a testable hypothesis. Think of your reader as a research colleague, not an examiner. Think about what he or she already knows (skip that) or might be curious about (develop that).

It is all about drawing out what’s worth reading from your dry facts.

How impact factor is calculated

A = the number of citations in 2012 of articles published in the journal in 2010-11.
B = the number of articles, reviews, proceedings or notes published in the journal in 2010-11
Impact factor 2012=A/B