A New Pathway to Publication at the Journal of Bacteriology

EDITORIAL

The publication pathway is evolving at a higher rate than ever. We as a scientific community have rightly taken a step back to reevaluate how publication in microbiology has worked historically and to think about what changes make sense in the future. One issue that often arises in discussions about publication is the presence of “gatekeepers,” a broadly used term that is often interpreted in the light of impediments to rapid, fair, and effective publication. It could be argued that our most common publication model, where two or three anonymous reviewers evaluate a manuscript and an editor decides to “accept, modify, or reject,” is an example of such gatekeeping. I, for one, would argue that this system, when overseen by professional scientists at society journals, is generally quite effective. While I have sometimes disagreed with the decision of an editor or the comments of a reviewer, I also often tell my students that I have never seen a manuscript go through this review process and not be improved.

One could argue, however, that there might be other frameworks for the review process that might reduce (or at least alter) traditional gatekeeping steps. An example is the direct submission track at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or the American Academy of Microbiology (AAM) track at mBio. In both cases, election to a scientific society entitles authors to submit one manuscript per year using a modified and accelerated review process. The process is similar for the two journals: the author solicits at least two reviews; the comments of the reviewers are incorporated into the revised manuscript; and the revised manuscript, reviews, and rebuttal are submitted to the journal for an editor to render a decision. The whole process can move quite rapidly. In the case of mBio, a recent report (1) showed that papers submitted via the AAM track had an 85% acceptance rate (higher than the overall acceptance rate of ~62%), and the citation rate of papers accepted via this track were as high as that for the standard submission path. Impacting these numbers is the fact that submissions for this track at mBio are expected to be among the top 10% of the author’s work. I think the AAM track framework has worked well to attract top papers to mBio, and it likely helps keep more papers in the ASM sphere.

How could we bring such a submission process to the J Bacteriol (JB)? I have thought about this carefully to make the process as open as possible to as many members of the JB community as possible, while balancing the idea that such a direct submission pathway should be earned based on metrics that are as unbiased as possible. So, I am proposing the following. First, JB editors and current members of the JB editorial board will have access to this submission track. Editors now go through an open search process and are selected based on both their scientific accomplishments and their contributions to publishing at ASM. Editorial board members come via a different process—they are typically selected by the editors, based on the number of ad hoc reviews they have provided over the preceding years. But there is a bias here in that the editors often select reviewers whose work they are familiar with because they are in the same field, trained together, or have other network connections, all of which can be fraught with issues of “clubiness.” Furthermore, many editorial board members are rotated off after two terms of 3 years each, but many of these individuals continue to review for JB.

So how could we open this process more broadly in a way that minimizes bias as best as we can? My idea is to expand the list of scientists who would qualify for this direct submission track, using two different metrics. First, authors who published two or more papers in JB in the past 3 years (2020 to 2022) would qualify. Being a repeat author of papers published in JB means that these individuals understand what the expectations are to publish in the journal. Second, individuals who reviewed three or more manuscripts in the preceding year (2022) would also qualify. This metric recognizes retired editorial board members and other individuals who give terrific service to the journal. Again, someone who reviews frequently for the journal understands what it takes to publish in JB. Using these criteria would add about 300 scientists to what I would call the Active Contributor Track (ACT). The list would be updated annually based on the metrics outlined above.

Starting in spring 2023, we will open the ACT accelerated submission option. This option will be available to authors once per calendar year and will work like the AAM track at mBio, as outlined above. We will, like mBio, track the consequences of this submission process in terms of how many authors use it and the impact of the published papers. I hope, in the end, that the ACT accelerated submission option provides an alternative means to approach publishing. Stay tuned for some additional submission options down the road.