After 50 years: Future challenges in publishing cancer research
P. Lichter
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30469
International Journal of Cancer
Abstract:The International Journal of Cancer just celebrated its 50th anniversary, with the first issue published in 1966. Looking back, it is rewarding to see that the journal continuously played an important role in cancer research over such a long period, always ranked among the top cancer journals, and published a wealth of highly influential studies. To maintain this standing, it is worthwhile to reflect about challenges that are ahead of us. Scientific journals always have played a critical role in the quality control of work considered for publication and this goes well beyond the inevitable evaluation of the work by peer reviewers. Much has been said recently about the problem of irreproducible results in cancer research and, thus, quality control is becoming even more crucial. These demands are arising from many new tools and reagents that are being introduced and the increasing number of high-throughput molecular data sets that are emerging. In this context, adequate delineation of biological material poses a particular challenge. A large body of cancer research studies is based on the use of tumor cell lines. Two problems are inherent to these approaches: (i) cell lines evolve in vitro, which might make them unsuitable as tool for a given specific biological question, and (ii) frequently, cell lines are cross-contaminated by other cells that are cultured in the same environment and intermix or even overgrow the respective line. Thus, cell line authentication constitutes a mandatory step in the process and the International Journal of Cancer has pioneered and set standards for the obligatory authentication of cell lines used in scientific publications (e.g. Int J Cancer. 2010 Jan 1;126(1):1. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24985). A further challenge is presented by the need for identifying proteins or their modifications in tissue sections of fractionated samples using antibodies. These tools are frequently not well characterized, and both self-made and commercially supplied antibodies often display additional or even different specificities, greatly affecting the conclusions of many scientific studies. While guidelines for the adequate characterization of antibodies are formulated manifold and peer reviewers often ask for proof of specificity in a given assay, journals might need to implement stricter rules for the general documentation of antibody specificities in submitted manuscripts. In its recently updated “principles and guidelines for reporting preclinical research,” the NIH has added a further important parameter to this list: the detailed description of animals used in a study. For journals, this will again raise the question of whether recommendations to authors will suffice to meet this important demand or whether obligatory information parameters need to be implemented as part of the submission process. A greater willingness to share tools and reagents and to communicate their characteristics would improve many of the emerging difficulties. Journals can play an important role in enabling such communications. In addition, some of the issues can be resolved by making raw data available, either to the editors and reviewers of a journal or even to the community of readers. In many cases, editors already require comprehensive raw data as, for example, an entire Western blot image gives much more information about the specificity of an antibody than sliced bands. In particular, the high number of inappropriate images submitted to journals owing to sloppiness, unacceptable manipulations, or fraudulent behavior on the part of the authors has already triggered stricter measures by many journals. To account for these issues, the International Journal of Cancer recently implemented an algorithm of thorough image analysis of all papers that have passed the reviewing process and are being considered for publication. Many journals are currently at the point of demanding comprehensive raw data as obligatory information. The scientific community does not always welcome such rules. However, the community of genomics researchers has had a leading role in this regard and demonstrated that large-scale data sharing is not only doable, but indeed greatly increases the quality of the respective data and, hence, the scientific outcome. Initially for high-throughput microarray-based data and, subsequently, for large-scale nucleic acid sequencing and other OMICs-type data, rules have been successfully implemented that require uploading of this information to broadly available databases prior to submission for publication. Certainly, genomic data from patients are only made available in accordance with the germane ethical and legal guidelines. Most journals that publish such genomics data, including the International Journal of Cancer, successfully adopted these policies. In present times when the future of scientific publishing is merely discussed as a dichotomy between the conventional publication mode (i.e. the reader of scientific literature pays for the publication) and Open Access (i.e. either the author or scientific organization(s) pay for the publication), it is very important to recognize that an increasing number of resources are required to assure and further develop high-level quality controls and that these need to be secured independently of the publication mode. The International Journal of Cancer also offers an Open Access option. However, regardless of publication mode, our journal will allocate sufficient resources to maintain adequate quality control measures and continue to further develop and implement high standards for quality control. We extend our thanks to our authors, reviewers, readers, and editorial board for their support in helping the editors of the International Journal of Cancer to meet these challenges now and in the future. Best wishes for 2017!