A new vision for the SAMJ-and a call for papers

Hannah Kikaya
2016
Medical journals, unlike their basic science cousins, are the link between medical science and practice. [1] Not only do they seek to disseminate new knowledge, but they also intend to influence outcomes -the application of new knowledge to the treatment of patients. But this laudable goal creates a dilemma: who are medical journals actually for? The scientists or the doctors? Or perhaps the small group of specialists who are both? This question is crucial because it influences every aspect of
more » ... journal's operations. What content to publish; how to present information; the policies and procedures that govern decisionmaking; and, in the internet age, even the choice of publication medium. The SAMJ and, by extension, its publisher the Health and Medical Publishing Group (HMPG), a wholly owned subsidiary of the South African Medical Association (SAMA), has historically addressed this challenge by trying to do it all: to be a scientific journal that targets researchers to publish their work, but with an editorial policy that favours mostly general-interest, non-academic doctors who are members of SAMA. [2] The problem is that these constituencies have distinctly different needs. Doctors generally read medical journals in a similar way to how they might approach a newspaper: to be informed, interested and kept up to date. [1,3] Researchers, however, read the content in a different way. For scientists, a journal is not read as a monthly digest; instead they identify content through online searches to use in their work. This latter approach renders the printed issues into which journals are carefully arranged all but irrelevant. During the past 5 years and more, the calls for the SAMJ to do better at serving both these audiences, with their divergent needs, have grown louder. Recommendations for change were most clearly articulated in a 2009 report [2] published by the Academy of Sciences of South Africa. The report summarised the conclusions of a panel chaired by Prof. Bongani Mayosi, convened to consider the future of South Africa (SA)'s clinical research. Devoting an entire chapter to scholarly journals, the report issued a strong call to action to SAMA to ensure that the SAMJ and its daughter titles better support both medicine and science, including building capacity of the next generation of researchers. Since that call was made, the need for reform has become even more pertinent. SA has moved into a phase where, with the National Health Insurance programme, [4] it is grappling with one of the most ambitious health reforms ever conceived. Decisions that affect the way healthcare is delivered, regulated and funded are being made every day. In the absence of a robust evidence base of contextually relevant, locally conducted research studies, disseminated through a strong local academic publishing industry, the risk is that this reform will roll on without properly incorporating the extensive knowledge and expertise of the professions that will determine its success. As the only general medical journal in the country, there is no more appropriate champion for evidence-based decision-making in health than the SAMJ. This realisation, coupled with the very clear recommendations of academic medical communities, [2] has led to a concrete plan of action -proposed by HMPG and endorsed by SAMA -for implementing change. Henceforth, the SAMJ will respond to researchers' stated priorities: fast publication; robust and efficient peer review; wide dissemination of published findings; and, crucially, no editorially imposed limit on the numbers or type of papers accepted, as long as quality criteria are met.
pmid:27303772 fatcat:txcpmo7oaja43d43nmpkk5ucdq