Content area
Full Text
When has an author been scooped? It sounds like a simple question, but in fact, as a recent editorial meeting unfolded, this issue became far more complex than I had thought.
Members of the JCI Editorial Board carefully screen each new manuscript submitted for the quality of the science, the appeal of the topic to our readership, and the importance of the findings. I almost wrote "novelty" in place of "importance," yet I think the former is assumed to be part of the latter; papers will not be deemed important if they merely replicate what has long been known. But what defines "long been known" is open to interpretation.
I think we can safely assume that a paper submitted to the JCI in 2009 showing that neutrophils produce superoxide would be uniformly considered old news - namely, 36 years old, since its original description by Babior, Kipnes, and Curnutte (1). Now, 36 years is a long time, but I am similarly sure that a report linking macrophagerelated inflammation in adipose tissue with insulin resistance and obesity would be seen as repetitive of papers from the Ferrante and Chen labs only 6 years ago (2, 3). But when exactly does something lose its novelty and become old news? Is 1 year long enough? Or is that even too long?
This very issue of how old is too old prompted one of the longest policy discussions our board has ever had. Like most such discussions, it was prompted by a specific paper. In this instance, a submitted manuscript was sent for external review. Two referees returned very positive comments. A few days later, the third review came in. The third referee liked the work as well, but pointed out that just as the review was being prepared, 2 papers describing very similar studies were released as advance online publications on the website of another high-profile journal. Were the authors of the/CJ paper scooped? If so, what should we, the Editorial Board, do about the current manuscript under consideration?
One set of editors felt strongly that although it was a regrettable situation, the work now lacked novelty...