Getting the message out
By Ruth SoRelle, M.P.H.
If you will notice, many of the articles in this newsletter and in publications for the general public are based on reports of scientific findings published in professional journals. These journals, written for researchers, physicians and others in the field of medicine and biomedical research, publish reports based on their scientific merit and the reviews of leaders in the field.
Publishing a journal
Publishing a journal is a laborious process. First the journal must make a name for itself in the field in order to receive submissions from scientists doing important research. They must assemble a cast of many to review the article submissions for scientific merit. Then scientific editors must review the articles, help the researchers correct their English and boil the report down to a manageable length with figures and art that are both accurate and attractive. Only then can they send the publication to print or, as is now more common, online publication.
Subscriptions to these journals can be pricey, and many libraries are now limiting their journal lists because the costs have gotten so high. Since Harold Varmus, Ph.D., pushed making publications available freely in an online form – sparking the beginning of the Public Library of Science journals, BioMed Central and others free access publications – the information is more accessible, but often the language of science proves difficult for lay audiences.
Covering science from journals
That is the reason that many general interest newspapers and magazines cover these journals and present the information in a format that is more friendly to the public. Most of the articles provide critical information about the progress of science, new treatments or the evaluations of old ones. As people become more educated about their health and understand more about the diseases that afflict them or pose a risk, they want to understand the science ongoing in that area.
Varmus was passionate about making the information in such journals more freely available. As he pointed out, public money pays for much of the research, and the public should have access to it. If scientists cannot read the journals, then they cannot advance the science because they will not know what has gone before. And tax payers deserve to know where their money has gone.
Two steps
It is a two-step process. First the journals evaluate the information in order to publish that which provides the most information. Then the general interest publications report on what is deemed most important in the medical literature, as it is called.
It is a process fraught with the possibility of human error, despite many safeguards. It is also the best we have at the moment to make sure that all interested parties have available to them the information they need to assure the progress of science and the dissemination of the information about it.
