Reflections on scholarly publishing

Dear Editors,

My congratulations to Dr. Eva Nagy on her retirement as Editor of the CJVR, and best wishes to her replacement, Dr. Pat Shewen (1). As Chair of the CVMA Editorial Committee, I drafted Eva, with no idea that she would toil away for 24 years. Apologies, Eva — I still feel guilty!

These News notes also caused me to reflect on my roles with The CVJ and CVMA (I’m now a Lifetime Member), as well as changes in scientific publishing. My long history with The CVJ started with my intern paper in 1970 (2). I later served as Assistant Editor under Editors Drs. Harold Reed and Bill Nagge, and I was Editor from 1986 to 1991. I followed advice (3) to have a 5-year plan: Year 1 to understand the annual cycle, Years 2 and 3 to institute changes, Year 4 to consolidate changes, and Year 5 to seek a successor. The CVJ was at a crossroads, with serious consideration given to becoming a newsletter. Fortunately, the Editorial Committee supported peer review. We expanded the News section, improved the graphic design, added advertisers, and received positive feedback (4). Readers requested more practical information plus small animal and review articles. We responded through personal contacts and editorials, adding new, practice-oriented features. Of my 46 editorials, the most noteworthy was a description of self-inflicted licorice toxicity (5).

Production of The CVJ was supported by CVMA staff (Nella McKellar et al), but scientific content relied on volunteer editors and reviewers. As Editor duties became increasingly onerous, having Dr. Bill Yates join as Scientific Editor for 3 years was appreciated. The succession plan was to hire a part-time Editor, which we accomplished with Dr. Doug Hare in 1991, when I then chaired the Editorial Committee. Doug did an excellent job, and was followed in turn by Dr. Carlton Gyles, and now by Drs. Tim Ogilvie and John Kastelic. Sixty years on, The CVJ remains a well-respected, member-supported, general-interest journal with a strong peer-reviewed scientific core.

Over my 50-plus years of scientific writing and editing, progress has been swift. From physical “cutting and pasting” of text to be typed, we moved through electric typewriters to word processors, desktop computers, laptops, and mobile devices. Changes in publishing have been phenomenal, including electronic manuscript submissions and communications. Meetings are now mostly virtual, and we store material in the Cloud. Drafts can be posted on preprint servers, such as bioRxiv, to establish primacy. Some journals are now published online only (6,7). Reprints of articles are a thing of the past.

Despite these advances, the basics of scientific writing remain. Gather source material meticulously, survey the literature, compose accurately, and write clearly. Despite some limitations, the peer-review system remains the gold standard, although predatory journals claim to fast-track it for those with deep pockets (8).

Web-based access to the scientific literature is a blessing, but it can be abused. Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is an opportunity for some and a challenge for editors. Journals use plagiarism software, which would be redundant if authors were well-trained in scientific writing.

The newest challenge is detecting material generated by artificial intelligence (AI) (9). Organizations such as COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) attempt to counter this threat. Editors must remain alert, as material produced by ChatGPT (Open AI) can be eerily readable. The policy of the Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation and other journals is that chatbots cannot be authors (10).

Despite 50 years of rapid evolution, the fundamentals of scientific writing remain: Be accurate, brief, and clear.