Author's disclosure

A doctor is a caregiver and a teacher. As a teacher, a doctor has to write. Treatment heals one but writing down a novel experience or innovation saves many lives. The latter in clinical medicine happens to a few but it is a routine happening on the editorial desk. A genuine author or researcher states that success is a path but not a destination. Most of the time, the editorial board is successful in convincing the author about the opinion.¹ There are instances, wherein a rejected paper has no scientific reason. Such irrational act hurts both manuscript and author like “throwing a baby along with tub water”. In the context, the victimized or humiliated authors have often murmured what happened in “AREPR” (AUTHOR, REVIEWER, EDITOR, PUBLISHER and READER) interface (Table 1). Aha! is it not painful? This has been well documented by the comments made to the article titled “Peer-Review Fraud—Hacking the Scientific Publication Process” by Haug.² Acceptance for publication in a reputed medical journal is an exciting moment for awaiting author. The approval acknowledges an arduous process of long journey from hypothesis to acceptance. The most important unmet needs for writing down a novel happening or innovation are command on language, basic computer knowledge, rough sketching of imagination, basic statistics, and not the last but the least is passion. Start with debate, give your best, and do not ignore co-authors. Editorial board is the highest jury to decide the fate of manuscript. The board also watches for the highest ethical standard and quality writing. Through a good writing, a research can be practiced by all the levels of physician. The appointed reviewers or referees are the experts to find science and its novelty to open the door to a newer level of evidence-based practice but at no cost or no reward. Of late, some publishers have added a page for contributing reviewers including Plublons as thank note. George Santayana told once “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. We do not progress by copy and paste. Midnight writing can create story and novel but not science.³ Practicing is something which you convince your patient but in writing it, you have to throw your ego, have patience, and acknowledge the existing evidences. W. Howie quoted “Not all who look at a journal are going to read even one article in it; Writers must know therefore what turns a looker in to a reader”.⁴ A good editor must have assimilated the moral of the famous movie “The elephant man”. The Hollywood depicts only a loving heart (editor) can see, feel, and reach to the inner self or deficiency of ugly (author). Constructive negative comments sooth a true researcher. Novel encounter is rare. Innovation needs the extreme of patience. Therefore, even a rare image is worth preserving. That is the reason why even the frontline journals still have a corner for rare and interesting image in contemporary. Have some publications, that is good, published in indexed journals, that is better but having some citation for works edge. When we publish, do we remember this fact? Why are we in such a hurry to publish? Do we have something with us that has not been documented? The world we live is so vast! So many like us share to enrich science in the good cause of humanity. Therefore, an in-detail literature review to claim your stuff is must. It is not easy for authors to reach all the frontline journals because most of the well-cited articles are paid. OPEN ACCESS5, 6 system is a boon. It helps the researchers with all financial status but it woos or drains author who has to pay even after hard work and investing valuable time. It has also limitations like pay and publish your stuff, thus ignoring the existing documentations because of hurrying up of the publication and for economical gain by some publishers. One without publication is odd man out in a teaching corridor. Of course, there is no escape. Publish something and somewhere. Pay for the existence. Some publishers help authors to choose reviewer of their choice but pay. Therefore, publication is not immune to fake and retraction thereafter.7, 8, 9, 10, 11 As we progress more towards OPEN ACCESS, it is the reader who enjoy almost always, the earning of publisher somewhat increases but it is the genuine author who suffers always financially as shown in the pyramid of scientific research model (Fig. 1). I would suggest let publisher or reader buy something worth the authors have. The exchange can be a certificate, accolade, or financial support. Is it not worth paying?

Table 1.

The improvement in the interface of “AREPR” (AUTHOR, REVIEWER, EDITOR, PUBLISHER and READER) improves the quality of publication.

Contributors	Dos	Do not
Author	• Give your best, why not when you are talking to world	• Hurry
• Keep up the most recent literature to avoid repetition	• Choose reviewer in favor or against
• Choose reputed journal, your work would not die	• Criticize the editor and reviewer as they introduce you and work to the world
• Keep talking to your co-authors and do not forget to mention their individual contribution in the cover letter and copyright: “Many eyes, less mistakes”	• Create false reviewer by using your and your friend's email
• Choose OPEN ACCESS when you can afford, it makes the science to reach far and wide
• Take reviewers and editorial comment positively and seriously, address those best
Reviewer	• Enjoy the scientific novel, as you are lucky to be get invited	• Hurry as medical science is the fastest growing science and very difficult to keep up with
• Ignore the author but respect the science he or she has brought
• If you do not have access to a recent literature which would help reviewing the current manuscript, ask your friend for help
Editor	• Maintain the highest ethical standard and quality of content in publication	Ignore reviewer's view point
• Retract ruthlessly when plagiarism or fake reviewing is established
• Appreciate the reviewers
Publisher	Preserve copyright as it is	Charge more than what is reasonable
Preserve the work to the eternity
Watch for plagiarisms
Appreciate the author for his work
Reader	As an end user, you are responsible for bridging the gap between bench and bedside.	Not encourage anything which is not evidence-based and updated

Fig. 1.

The publication pyramid illustrates the process of publication and contributors in it. The grass root level worker is author at the bottom of pyramid who despite of his valuable inputs (intellectual, hard work, time and money) is always a financial loser (blue arrow) but occasionally his work is appreciated (green arrow). The reviewers are experts behind the screen who hunt for novel science in indexed submission but are paid nothing or no rewards. Editorial board is the jury and cares for ethics and quality of content which can be easily practiced. The publisher does business and always gains financially both in pre OPEN access (thin brown arrow) and OPEN ACCESS era (bold brown arrow). The end user is the reader who really bridges the gap between bench and bedside with strong feedback in the real life.

Conflicts of interest

The author has none to declare.