Latest / Voices of Otolaryngology / The AAO-HNSF Journal: Breaking New Ground with Dr. Schmalbach

Transcript

The AAO-HNSF Journal: Breaking New Ground with Dr. Schmalbach · Voices of Otolaryngology

• 0:02
  Welcome to the Voices of Otolaryngology podcast series, where we spotlight
• 0:05
  diverse perspectives and insights within the field of otolaryngology.
• 0:09
  I'm your host, Rahul Shah.
• 0:10
  Let's jump into it.
• 0:13
  Welcome to Voices of Otolaryngology.
• 0:15
  One of my favorite phrases is sometimes you just get lucky.
• 0:19
  And here we are, doctor.
• 0:20
  Small but super excited to be here. Welcome, welcome.
• 0:23
  And we're staring out at the OTO Expo at the 2025 Annual meeting.
• 0:28
  It is awesome to be here and to be with you.
• 0:31
  Likewise. All right. So where are you?
• 0:33
  What are your titles?
• 0:34
  And everybody knows we don't prep for these.
• 0:37
  We just have conversations.
• 0:39
  So, it is my privilege to serve as editor in chief for both of our journals:
• 0:44
  Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
• 0:44
  and OTO Open. And to serve on the board of directors.
• 0:48
  I'm a head neck surgeon by trade and chair of the Department of Otolaryngology
• 0:51
  at Temple University in Philadelphia.
• 0:54
  How long will we have you in the role?
• 0:57
  How long is our, role as service for both the journals?
• 0:59
  Sure.
• 1:00
  So usually it's a four year term
• 1:01
  with the option if the board feels appropriate to renew.
• 1:04
  So I'm very grateful that that is the case.
• 1:06
  Let's give a high five.
• 1:07
  I send her down.
• 1:08
  All right. She's got another four years.
• 1:10
  And we are so grateful.
• 1:11
  So sincerely as a author, as, somebody
• 1:17
  who writes, what we colloquially call the “White Journal”
• 1:21
  because it's, it's printed with a white cover is an awesome journal.
• 1:25
  What do you say to you?
• 1:26
  It must be perhaps the highlight of your career as an academician.
• 1:30
  Actually, I think, just the impact you're taking.
• 1:34
  Cutting edge, state of the art medicine,
• 1:37
  contemporary viewpoints and really making sure
• 1:41
  that that information gets into the hands of the otolaryngologist,
• 1:45
  our sister societies, mid-level providers, trainers, residents, med students.
• 1:51
  And for me, what's the joy is the fact that I have this incredible person
• 1:54
  far smarter than I've gone.
• 1:56
  With how subspecialties we are, we are amazing associate editors,
• 2:00
  but I mean really hard on the really the content experts, the ones
• 2:04
  that figure out who's the right person to review the article.
• 2:07
  Well,
• 2:07
  I want you to talk about the associate editors
• 2:09
  and the way the journal is structured
• 2:11
  in just a second, but I do want to acknowledge I work for the board.
• 2:14
  We have a board of directors of the Academy
• 2:16
  and the foundation and Doctor small Box sits on that board.
• 2:19
  Last year she gave the best presentation I've ever seen at a board meeting.
• 2:23
  All right. That was her.
• 2:25
  It was a ten minute presentation on bringing the journal back.
• 2:29
  Talk about that.
• 2:30
  What do I mean by bringing the journal back?
• 2:32
  Absolutely.
• 2:33
  So workflows always ebb and flow back and forth.
• 2:36
  And there was a period where we wound up outsourcing the editorial staff.
• 2:40
  So think about that as the individuals that accept the manuscript
• 2:43
  and make sure that all the teams are cost and the eyes are dotted, not the peer
• 2:47
  review, but the the staff behind essentially the engine that makes it run.
• 2:51
  And though we really appreciated the organization
• 2:55
  that was doing that for the journal, we realize that personal touch was lost.
• 2:59
  And at the Academy, it's all about that personal touch.
• 3:02
  So to be able to bring this, editorial staff back
• 3:05
  in-house, you feel like it's streamlined the process.
• 3:09
  Hopefully for authors, they feel like it's more user friendly.
• 3:12
  And then for reviewers, too.
• 3:13
  And ultimately, what we want to make sure is happening is that when we receive
• 3:17
  a manuscript, we are turning around as quickly and thoroughly as possible.
• 3:22
  The disposition of final decision so that we can support researchers
• 3:26
  and we're not the bottleneck or prohibiting them from publishing results.
• 3:30
  And for full transparency, I don't get to put my finger on the scale
• 3:34
  because we have a firewall, and Cecilia and I are very serious about that.
• 3:38
  She's rejected some of my manuscripts, and I just smile and move on.
• 3:41
  They probably deserve to be rejected.
• 3:43
  When we talk about bringing the journal in-house,
• 3:47
  it was a seven figure investment.
• 3:48
  But we're very thankful for you.
• 3:51
  It's been a huge amount of your time here, and I want
• 3:54
  I want the public to know that a huge amount of your time.
• 3:57
  What are your KPIs?
• 3:58
  What do you look at?
• 3:59
  Because I submit something to the journal.
• 4:01
  What is it?
• 4:02
  Fair turnaround time because you're exceeding all your benchmarks.
• 4:05
  I'm very proud of that.
• 4:06
  But what should our listeners think when they submit something to the journal?
• 4:09
  Absolutely.
• 4:10
  So we really try to make sure that the first decision,
• 4:14
  what we call this physician, is done in 30 days or less.
• 4:17
  But again, it's not just about that metric.
• 4:19
  We want it to be a quality or you.
• 4:21
  And so there's some things that we do to help with that one.
• 4:24
  I'm really proud that the White Journal and OTO Open
• 4:28
  in order to progress up to be an associate editor.
• 4:30
  It's actually based on their. It's not.
• 4:32
  Who knows. Yeah. That's why I didn't get it. Yeah.
• 4:35
  Because it was based on merit.
• 4:36
  Cecilia I couldn't pull any strings.
• 4:38
  And so we. Talk about that talked about the pathway.
• 4:40
  So it's, it's based on your involvement with the Journal.
• 4:44
  How many reviews you're doing, are they timely reviews?
• 4:47
  Are you missing your deadline?
• 4:48
  And then actually every review is actually scored by me.
• 4:51
  So there's a quality measure.
• 4:53
  And so you're looking at thousands of reviews yourself.
• 4:56
  The score. Yeah.
• 4:57
  Yeah yeah.
• 4:59
  And then from that if someone's doing really well they become a star reviewer.
• 5:02
  So our reviewers go on to the editor.
• 5:04
  I didn't get that either.
• 5:06
  So I'm with the editorial board.
• 5:07
  And from there, if they're still engaged and interested, that's how they wind up
• 5:11
  promoting up in their area of specialty to an associate.
• 5:14
  So we're going to pivot. This could go on for hours.
• 5:16
  But don't worry Miguel I won't go on for hours.
• 5:19
  Let me ask you, I believe in brevity
• 5:22
  and sometimes I'll get reviews back that are four pages long.
• 5:25
  I've written to, Nature or New England Journal to 17 page review.
• 5:29
  I actually think that's superfluous and ridiculous.
• 5:32
  I think a reviewer shouldn't be correcting my grammar and typos.
• 5:36
  How do you greater review is it how long it is?
• 5:38
  So I actually if you were to go on our academy website,
• 5:42
  and the short answer is actually
• 5:43
  that again, it's not the length, it's the quality of the review.
• 5:46
  One was the disposition, correct?
• 5:48
  Two, did you pick up on all of the major flaws and minor flaws?
• 5:52
  And so there's actually a scoring system.
• 5:54
  It's very transparent, very objective, as it should be with the dual.
• 5:58
  Scoring system for how how a review gets graded.
• 6:02
  The research that myself, I probably would get a C.
• 6:06
  All right.
• 6:06
  So you become a star reviewer.
• 6:07
  And then how many associate editors do you have?
• 6:10
  And I love that you're constantly evolving the journal.
• 6:13
  I've gotten to work with you in a year in this role,
• 6:15
  and you're always thinking, what's around the corner?
• 6:17
  It's about how many associate editors? Yeah.
• 6:19
  So we have an A,
• 6:20
  we have, depending on the subspecialty, we can have anywhere from 1 to 3.
• 6:23
  Associate editor.
• 6:24
  So for example pediatrics, head/neck, we have three layer and we now have two.
• 6:30
  I'm really excited.
• 6:32
  One of the newer AP positions is our sleep associate editor,
• 6:36
  a wonderful opportunity to partner with our sister society
• 6:40
  this year that's, really excited.
• 6:43
  Again, I think it's my responsibility as an advisor to make sure our journal
• 6:46
  staying current.
• 6:48
  And so we have a new associate editor for, AI and.
• 6:52
  Wow, congratulations. Thank you.
• 6:54
  And then the next thing that's going to launch, in February, when Jennifer
• 6:58
  Shinn finishes her role as deputy editor, she's done an amazing job.
• 7:01
  She's going to transition into an associate editor,
• 7:05
  for statistics and at the genealogy.
• 7:07
  Amazing.
• 7:08
  Does that mean we have a new deputy editor?
• 7:10
  I do, I'm very excited.
• 7:12
  Thank you for writing that up for me.
• 7:14
  So, Doctor James Maples, from up in Boston,
• 7:17
  he's currently the associate editor for ontology.
• 7:20
  And the Road Allergy, again, has done a remarkable job.
• 7:23
  This is based on merit.
• 7:25
  What I'm really excited about is he is devoted to education.
• 7:29
  And, you know, like you can tell there's a lot of education
• 7:31
  that needs to go into becoming a reviewer, doing quality reviews.
• 7:35
  So one of his responsibilities will be taking over the peer review program.
• 7:39
  We were the first total Eric Allergy Journal
• 7:42
  to actually set up a structured peer review program so that residents
• 7:46
  could learn how to do a good review, and when they graduate,
• 7:49
  they actually go through, you know, an independent spore.
• 7:52
  And if they do a great job, they become a peer reviewer.
• 7:55
  For me, that's really important
• 7:58
  because by definition of peer review needs to be someone of your people.
• 8:03
  And I sat there and when I developed the program,
• 8:05
  I thought, no one taught me back in the day
• 8:07
  how the peer review I kind of learned on the job,
• 8:09
  and it just seemed obvious that we made that educational opportunity.
• 8:13
  So if you will take that over
• 8:14
  and then we're going to start
• 8:15
  to partner together and look at other educational platforms that he can put out
• 8:19
  on the website for the Academy, not only for our domestic members,
• 8:23
  but again, we want to really reach far, literally around the globe.
• 8:26
  And, part of your national members as well.
• 8:30
  I love the meritocracy.
• 8:34
  Don't let me put my finger on the scale.
• 8:35
  Don't reward your friends or my friends.
• 8:38
  Somebody could grow up to be model.
• 8:41
  No. I'm serious. Right.
• 8:42
  So you said it.
• 8:43
  You could start in a resident,
• 8:44
  then you become a peer reviewer, and then you can do that.
• 8:47
  That's how you, Doctor Naples and others have ascended, is that right?
• 8:50
  Right. Absolutely.
• 8:51
  Thank you for that. That's awesome. Really?
• 8:53
  I think it's very, very important to have an equitable,
• 8:56
  superstructure for our church.
• 8:57
  Much gratitude. OTO Open: How's that going?
• 9:01
  It's going great.
• 9:01
  It's actually, has a significant pool of, over the past few years.
• 9:07
  One of the things with OTO Open that's nice is that immediately
• 9:10
  when it's accepted that manuscript is available not just to people
• 9:13
  that subscribe to the journal, but actually around the globe.
• 9:17
  So a lot of times, understandably so, there's a little bit of confusion.
• 9:20
  So if I may. Yes, yes, yes.
• 9:22
  OTO Open is open access.
• 9:24
  It is PubMed indexed, meaning it has an impact factor.
• 9:28
  It goes through your review.
• 9:30
  So it's not one of the, predatory journals.
• 9:34
  Actually members that publish in OTO Open
• 9:37
  will have over two times more, citations attached to their manuscript
• 9:42
  because anyone in the world has access to of it.
• 9:45
  They have.
• 9:46
  So I would increase their age factor. Exactly.
• 9:49
  Oh, my. The ceiling.
• 9:50
  Oh. All right, game on.
• 9:52
  I want to artificially increase my eight factor.
• 9:54
  Can you explain each index.
• 9:56
  So each index each index.
• 9:58
  Yes. Can you explain to him that.
• 10:00
  Absolutely.
• 10:00
  So we often talk about impact factor for the journal
• 10:03
  that each index for the authors, how many times were cited.
• 10:06
  And that has everything to do with access.
• 10:09
  And that's why open access
• 10:10
  especially for our international members becomes really important.
• 10:13
  Yeah.
• 10:14
  And correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the h index is,
• 10:17
  it's where the intersection, the y and x axis.
• 10:20
  So the x axis is how many publications you have
• 10:24
  and the y axis is how many times you've been cited.
• 10:27
  So if you have 40 publications that have been cited 40 times right.
• 10:32
  Yeah I think I'm saying you're right.
• 10:34
  We'll give you a h index of 40.
• 10:36
  Yeah.
• 10:36
  Yeah. So that's amazing.
• 10:38
  So OTO Open is really flourishing.
• 10:40
  And that's on you as well.
• 10:41
  Well it's a team effort. It is. Absolutely.
• 10:43
  And it's a lot.
• 10:44
  And one of the other things
• 10:45
  that I really appreciate the board and the academy doing is when we went to
• 10:49
  Wiley as our publisher, it actually opened up, more platforms
• 10:54
  for some of our, international authors to be able to publish
• 10:59
  where there's a waiver of the, processing fee.
• 11:03
  And then domestically, there are many institutions that already belong,
• 11:07
  if you will, to a consortium where their, publishing fee is on.
• 11:11
  For OTO Open? For OTO Open.
• 11:13
  And so I just encourage authors to look into that if they're not sure,
• 11:16
  can reach out to our staff who will be able to answer.
• 11:19
  Yeah, I believe in full transparency and I don't have all the answers,
• 11:22
  but I have smart people around me.
• 11:24
  I didn't know that,
• 11:25
  so I didn't know that, Cecilia, that some organizations,
• 11:28
  even domestically have programs, consortiums were open,
• 11:32
  it's subsidized or it's sorry and international.
• 11:35
  There's there's other. Pathways.
• 11:36
  Essentially it's the institution that's paying for it.
• 11:39
  So absolutely go for the author.
• 11:41
  Absolutely. So there's the Big Ten, right.
• 11:44
  Like football. Yeah.
• 11:45
  The Big Ten in the Midwest, Michigan, etc..
• 11:47
  So I encourage authors to look into that becoming more and more.
• 11:51
  You're going global and doctor Small back.
• 11:54
  Amazing again.
• 11:56
  She's a chair and then she has two journals,
• 11:59
  but she told us, folks, we're not out there global.
• 12:03
  And can you talk about that
• 12:04
  because you convinced us that we need to go meet our authors where they are?
• 12:08
  Absolutely.
• 12:08
  So we have some amazing research being done by our international members.
• 12:13
  They can't always come to the annual meeting
• 12:15
  that are thrilled to hear they're over 75, please. Here.
• 12:17
  Yeah, 75 countries, 820 maybe for Indianapolis.
• 12:21
  So, like you said, you need to meet people where they are
• 12:24
  and make sure that they understand what the resources are
• 12:26
  and the benefits, for example, for OTO Open, I've had the privilege of,
• 12:30
  for example, going to Taiwan back in the day, looking forward
• 12:34
  to some other international meetings and then really partnering
• 12:36
  with our international colleagues here through the academy,
• 12:40
  doing some educational, programs and platforms, as we talked about before.
• 12:44
  The other thing I'm very excited about is this year, we are actually going to
• 12:47
  continue our domestic editorial board and international editorial board.
• 12:53
  And I think that that really speaks to the health of the journals,
• 12:56
  but also the value
• 12:57
  of our international researchers, such that we're all on the same,
• 13:00
  client here when it comes to research and opportunities.
• 13:05
  So you're putting the editorial boards together.
• 13:07
  How many editors are there total?
• 13:09
  Well, I'd have to go through and count. Are we talking about 50? Maybe
• 13:12
  a 50.
• 13:13
  Yeah. Right.
• 13:14
  You were struck and you shared this with the board.
• 13:17
  The reception from our international colleagues.
• 13:20
  From Taiwan and others.
• 13:22
  What was kind of what was their feedback and what was 1 or 2 big take home?
• 13:25
  Hey, honestly, are eager to do research and to publish and want to just find out
• 13:30
  how to how do we do this successfully within the structure
• 13:33
  of Otolaryngology/Head Neck Surgery and OTO Open?
• 13:37
  And so for me, I think that that energy and drive is just exciting.
• 13:42
  And that's what lights the fire in my belly.
• 13:44
  And, some of the greatest joys I get as an editor.
• 13:48
  Yeah, I hate to admit this, but I'll do it publicly to all of you.
• 13:51
  She has a great podcast.
• 13:52
  Do you want to tell about your journal podcast? It's awesome.
• 13:55
  Thank you exactly for that.
• 13:56
  I don't know. But it's very cool.
• 13:59
  So once a month, we select one manuscript that's been published in that issue.
• 14:04
  I do try and rotate it around.
• 14:06
  I realize we have members from all different subspecialties,
• 14:10
  within our field,
• 14:11
  and we invite the senior author along with the managing associate editor.
• 14:15
  Much like this, there is no script.
• 14:17
  It's a fireside chat, if you will.
• 14:19
  But for those who have 20 minutes on the treadmill or driving home,
• 14:23
  I know our younger, trainees enjoy podcasts over there.
• 14:27
  It's a great opportunity to hear from the experts
• 14:29
  learning the current science, and think about how you may want
• 14:32
  to incorporate this manuscript research, if you will, into your own.
• 14:37
  Yeah, so I'm 50 years old.
• 14:39
  I told you, I'm fully transparent.
• 14:40
  You know what does this year, half our membership is older than me
• 14:44
  and half for younger.
• 14:45
  So I love that you are giving different ways to meet the audiences.
• 14:50
  I'll tell you, there's nothing to me more exciting
• 14:53
  than getting the white journal out of my mailbox and sitting to read it.
• 14:56
  You get that same feeling I do, I like, I start to see I don't even sometimes
• 15:00
  eat dinner.
• 15:00
  I'll just go sit in the study.
• 15:02
  It's so cool.
• 15:03
  So no, I totally agree.
• 15:04
  Yet I know there's some people that absolutely want to go on to the computer
• 15:08
  or on their phone, and so I it goes back to you need to meet people where they are.
• 15:12
  And I think that that's what the journal Nature Economy does exceedingly well.
• 15:16
  You talk to you about submission to disposition, a 30 day cycle time.
• 15:22
  All right.
• 15:22
  So I get lucky.
• 15:24
  Sometimes you get lucky, gets accepted.
• 15:26
  What's my time to see it published?
• 15:29
  And that. Oh, you put you on the spot.
• 15:30
  This isn't rehearsed, but is it online first walk me through.
• 15:33
  Absolutely.
• 15:33
  So it's kind of go online first, for open, then that's where it stays online.
• 15:38
  And that is almost immediate.
• 15:40
  For the print journal.
• 15:41
  It'll still publish online first and then it'll eventually get put into an issue.
• 15:46
  And usually there's about a 90 day lag, I really do.
• 15:49
  That's it. I know I try to real that's amazing.
• 15:51
  Make sure that, you know, if you've been in the ground
• 15:54
  that you're, you know, we go by that order.
• 15:57
  But sometimes there needs to be some wiggle.
• 15:59
  And you be having to clean up the queue as we transition in-house.
• 16:02
  But you really aim for 90 days.
• 16:04
  Yeah. That's where we said, all right, now.
• 16:06
  We sit there so I could do science.
• 16:09
  I could today is,
• 16:12
  what is today, October and May.
• 16:15
  All right.
• 16:16
  So let's challenge
• 16:17
  Doctor Small like software because here at the annual meeting now
• 16:19
  something give you more time?
• 16:20
  Maybe by November,
• 16:21
  a Thanksgiving, I get a disposition, but I could see it in the early winter.
• 16:26
  Absolutely, absolutely.
• 16:27
  That's amazing.
• 16:28
  I feel like that's our responsibility.
• 16:30
  You know, at the end of the day, researchers, academicians,
• 16:34
  they have the ability to shop around and decide what journal do
• 16:38
  they want to publish in.
• 16:39
  And I think having a turnaround matters.
• 16:42
  And I appreciate I see it's my responsibility not just to the authors,
• 16:45
  to to the public too, because with this is truly groundbreaking science.
• 16:49
  We need to get the word out there.
• 16:50
  So you don't have to, agree to this.
• 16:53
  You can wink your eye and I won't ask it again.
• 16:56
  Are you able to move things up in the queue?
• 16:58
  If the science is I can.
• 17:00
  I'm telling. Absolutely.
• 17:01
  And and I will do that.
• 17:03
  If it's something that's,
• 17:04
  you know, earth shattering really deserves to be moved up in the queue.
• 17:08
  The other thing, again, wanting to recognize that
• 17:10
  we serve all of our members, so I never want to have one issue, that's all.
• 17:16
  I'm a head up surgeon.
• 17:17
  It can't be all head and neck as much as I'm passionate about that.
• 17:19
  So making sure there's something for our layering
• 17:21
  knowledge system, for our,
• 17:23
  you know, especially our private practitioners,
• 17:25
  those that are doing comprehensive biology.
• 17:27
  So it's that channel balance.
• 17:29
  And then there are things such as the CGS, the clinical practice guidelines.
• 17:32
  They're going to be escalated.
• 17:33
  And elevated to the forefront.
• 17:35
  What advice do you give to our buddy at the dimensions?
• 17:40
  I'll tell you.
• 17:40
  And you're going to this is cause chills for you.
• 17:43
  Do you remember we would actually write a manuscript.
• 17:45
  We would print it out, we would staple seven of these.
• 17:48
  I would go to the post office in Boston, I would mail it, remember that.
• 17:51
  And then you would wait
• 17:54
  and then you'd get something typewritten by somebody, which is the reviews.
• 17:57
  Is it surreal what we used to do?
• 17:59
  I'm so proud that your cycle time is really, 120 days.
• 18:04
  I mean, that's awesome.
• 18:05
  I can't see it shrinking much more and having a quality clip of four months
• 18:09
  from submission to the press with your ability to move it up is this feels good?
• 18:14
  I agree with that full heartedly.
• 18:16
  What advice you give to our trainees, those that are, private practice,
• 18:22
  those that are active mission certain scientist, what advice do you given.
• 18:26
  Actually.
• 18:26
  And should our care it'll be top of mind for them.
• 18:29
  I would hope so.
• 18:30
  And I think the onus is on me to make sure
• 18:32
  we're delivering the top product that we can for the trainees.
• 18:35
  I encourage those that enjoy peer review and scientific writing.
• 18:39
  Think about going through the peer review program.
• 18:41
  It is a wonderful gateway into,
• 18:44
  scientific driving with a wonderful leadership track.
• 18:48
  For those that are trying to publish, the recommendation
• 18:53
  I would have is, use each review as an opportunity to learn.
• 18:58
  It's always hard, and I've been there to get your manuscript rejected,
• 19:01
  put it away for a couple days, then pull it back out with an open
• 19:04
  mind, open heart, and see what can be done differently.
• 19:08
  And then just a little pearl some people don't know is
• 19:10
  when you were asked to revise the manuscript.
• 19:13
  Perfect.
• 19:13
  Nice that the people that reviewed it the first time who are volunteers,
• 19:17
  working just as hard as you are with RV targets, etc.
• 19:21
  they're going to review it a second time, so be gentle and nice.
• 19:25
  We all make mistakes.
• 19:27
  They may have missed something.
• 19:28
  Just be kind. And, you know, you're kidding me.
• 19:31
  What? You see, people like, say, I can't believe.
• 19:33
  Oh, it's like, give me give you something that they've said.
• 19:35
  This is correct. Give me. Some dirt.
• 19:36
  You can wind up with some pretty, nasty, snarky remarks.
• 19:40
  And though they may be right about the context
• 19:43
  of how it's being presented, because they go.
• 19:45
  And if you're emails to get the manuscript,
• 19:48
  you don't want to disenfranchize the individual.
• 19:51
  So let's talk about that.
• 19:52
  Let's talk about tips to,
• 19:55
  make yourself obsequious to the reviewer.
• 19:59
  If I was always right.
• 20:00
  Thank you very much.
• 20:01
  I really, sincerely appreciate your time regarding your 900 suggestions.
• 20:06
  Number one, two, three.
• 20:08
  Thank you very much. Right.
• 20:09
  I mean, you just acknowledge perhaps you missed I just does this on page three.
• 20:13
  Exactly.
• 20:14
  I even when I resubmit manuscripts, To other journals, I don't get rejected.
• 20:19
  Yeah. I guess Marva.
• 20:21
  I won't even say like, perhaps you missed out to say
• 20:24
  thank you for that important point.
• 20:25
  It is stated, and I'll just say that, where it is, and again
• 20:30
  and we want to make sure we're publishing accurate information.
• 20:34
  So I do want authors to recognize there's also an appeals process.
• 20:38
  We're going to make mistakes.
• 20:39
  If you think something was misinterpreted, by the, reviewer,
• 20:43
  the associate editor ultimately beneath please come forward.
• 20:48
  And if there is a true mistake there, we want you to let us.
• 20:52
  Yeah. And I'll look you right in the eyes, in the.
• 20:54
  Can we hear doctor smallpox through to her word.
• 20:56
  Member called me about a month ago.
• 21:00
  I immediately call Doctor Small back, and we had our five,
• 21:03
  but she said, have them email me.
• 21:05
  And we do have an appeals process that you are true to your work.
• 21:08
  So I appreciate that.
• 21:09
  Let's ask you the the million dollar question.
• 21:12
  Ready? You know what it is?
• 21:13
  What's our acceptance rate?
• 21:15
  So our company rates around 21%. All right.
• 21:18
  So every five papers I should get one in. Yeah.
• 21:22
  And how about.
• 21:23
  Oh, no. Open up. Do we know that or do you disclose it?
• 21:26
  It's just a little bit higher. Yeah.
• 21:27
  But still it's it's about 1 in 5.
• 21:30
  Is that comfortable? Is that where you want to be?
• 21:32
  It is.
• 21:33
  I mean I think at the end it can't be 100%.
• 21:35
  Can't be zero.
• 21:35
  Correct.
• 21:36
  You know, I, I do think one needs to decide
• 21:40
  as a journal, are you more interested in the in profit factor.
• 21:43
  And the easiest way to elevate your impact factor,
• 21:45
  candidly, is to publish fewer articles.
• 21:48
  Is now involved in the formula for sports.
• 21:50
  If one is thinking about it, it is. Now what else?
• 21:52
  I really that is not our approach for us.
• 21:55
  We have this, fiduciary role to our academy members and to our patients.
• 22:00
  So we want to publish sound science.
• 22:02
  It is set in the low 20s, for a number of years.
• 22:05
  So I think that that's on the level.
• 22:07
  And then I think just understanding
• 22:09
  when it's a manuscript doesn't quite meet the merits of the print.
• 22:13
  Wait till now, say it's a smaller pilot project,
• 22:17
  or there was a, a methodology fatal flaw.
• 22:20
  That's not the I won't say if there's a methodology, gap, if you will.
• 22:26
  That's not the author's fault. We can't address.
• 22:28
  But maybe that information is important because that's where OTO Open is -
• 22:32
  a great hall. Yeah.
• 22:34
  What do you see in the frontier? You're always innovative.
• 22:36
  You're thinking ahead. Where do you see the journal going?
• 22:38
  You just had your draft plan.
• 22:40
  You've talked a little bit about that.
• 22:41
  Modernizing the journal, acknowledging our authors.
• 22:45
  Where do you see us going the next? Now you read up.
• 22:47
  We're so thankful for you and the next board for four and a half, five year.
• 22:52
  Yeah, I think the landscape is wide open on the international front.
• 22:55
  That excites me because I'm actually going to learn from our international. Now.
• 22:59
  What do you mean by that?
• 23:00
  Just an opportunity to continue to partner and,
• 23:03
  publish and ensure that sound research that's being done
• 23:06
  globally has a home in the White Journal and also other events.
• 23:11
  The second thing is artificial intelligence.
• 23:14
  Wonderful opportunity that that science is not going to go away.
• 23:18
  I mean, in the spirit of disclosure, just came from the consortium
• 23:22
  where all the journal editors get together in a very clear way.
• 23:25
  Talk about challenges.
• 23:27
  Naturally, we talk about, artificial intelligence today
• 23:31
  and figuring out, you know, that black box methodology that we can't quite explain.
• 23:36
  We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
• 23:39
  But how do we review those articles?
• 23:41
  And how do we continue to support AI,
• 23:44
  develop research and ensure that it's a valid space?
• 23:47
  So I think that that's the next frontier.
• 23:50
  Can you give us a scoop from that, or do you want to get your thoughts
• 23:53
  of the consortium together before I hold you, to it from the AI consortium?
• 23:58
  Well, we're hoping, we will put together a panel for next year.
• 24:01
  Absolutely. That that'll get access to Doctor Jarvis.
• 24:05
  So, you know, really where it, comes into play.
• 24:08
  Many will argue that for example, the publisher ultimately is gonna have
• 24:12
  to determine fit AI
• 24:15
  in a in-house within the publisher, be part of the review process.
• 24:19
  So not AI, they file access to everyone.
• 24:21
  Right? This is copyrighted material.
• 24:23
  This is author own ideas.
• 24:25
  At the same time, I think we as otolaryngologist recognize
• 24:29
  we need to decide as a profession
• 24:32
  how best to implement AI.
• 24:34
  And where does where is the ethical boundaries
• 24:37
  and how do we ensure our patients feel safe with how their data is being owned.
• 24:42
  And we don't want a publisher to be the ones dictating or defining that.
• 24:46
  And that's why I'm really grateful for my other colleagues who are phenomenal
• 24:50
  journal affairs as well.
• 24:51
  I would implore your consortium when you
• 24:54
  we use words like academic bureaucracy, you consortium.
• 24:58
  To me, that's code word for ten years, 20 years, 30 years.
• 25:02
  We would love for you all to come out with something in 18 months to 2 to 3 years.
• 25:06
  It's moving so fast.
• 25:07
  Yeah, we're hoping to to come out within the next year.
• 25:10
  And candidly, the last line is going to be we will it, but we will visit this
• 25:13
  in 6 to 12 months because we know it's going to rapidly turn over.
• 25:17
  And it's not that it's gonna be a black and white.
• 25:20
  Here are the bullet points. But these are the things to consider.
• 25:22
  These are some of the important talking points.
• 25:25
  A few of these are things to think about in the future.
• 25:28
  You're one of the key leaders in our field serving on our board
• 25:31
  in this very important role we like to do for fun.
• 25:35
  Oh, for. Fun. Yeah.
• 25:35
  This is our group off time now, but get to know you.
• 25:38
  I love it. So, I'm an avid runner. I drove the veggies.
• 25:41
  Let me eat more at my feet.
• 25:42
  But it's a great way to enjoy the outdoors.
• 25:44
  And in our intersect with people you would never otherwise cross paths.
• 25:48
  Avid reader, you, enjoy, that,
• 25:53
  and enjoy.
• 25:53
  Cooking. You got some sports team there in Philly.
• 25:56
  I do is a rough weekend with the Phillies and the Eagles.
• 25:58
  Yeah, hearty words regarding the journal.
• 26:01
  I am so proud that you are the captain of our ship.
• 26:04
  The future is very, very bright.
• 26:05
  And there's some tough waters.
• 26:07
  Not politics, but technology and regulatory.
• 26:10
  It's a very hard kind of you.
• 26:12
  Journal headed are not over one, but two.
• 26:14
  Any parting words for us?
• 26:15
  Absolutely. One, thank you for the opportunity.
• 26:18
  And honestly, a sincere thank you to our academy members.
• 26:21
  Our researchers are.
• 26:23
  Amazing. Right.
• 26:24
  The success you heard today is, is not about me.
• 26:27
  It's really about the. How many reviewers are there?
• 26:30
  So we print it down to just active reviewers.
• 26:32
  So it's around 400.
• 26:34
  I love these ways of getting rid of you.
• 26:36
  Don't give me any journal stuff anymore.
• 26:37
  So the whole team is putting about 500 people that are touching, right?
• 26:40
  Absolutely.
• 26:41
  But no, I, you know, a sincere thank you for all the hard work
• 26:44
  I words cannot possibly I express my gratitude.
• 26:48
  And then just again, I anyone interested in journal reviewing, especially our,
• 26:54
  brilliant residents, please think about the peer review program.
• 26:58
  So, really, how did they find that out?
• 26:59
  So, come find me.
• 27:01
  Reach out to any of the, staff members.
• 27:03
  There's also, online, you can, look and register that way.
• 27:08
  Where is it? Online. You know, so within that,
• 27:11
  dot network, there's an entire page dedicated to the journal.
• 27:15
  And that under their peer review or review, if you wish, you and I had that.
• 27:19
  Oh, I know why.
• 27:20
  Think of our first review. We had no idea what we were doing.
• 27:22
  We might have even go straight in for an attending.
• 27:24
  I don't remember what you and I used to do.
• 27:26
  And then the last thing I would just add, if I
• 27:28
  may, is, please think about publishing your great research,
• 27:31
  you know, in the White Journal.
• 27:32
  I know with turnaround times like that exposure of international,
• 27:36
  I think it's going to be our first place to go back,
• 27:38
  not as one in our gratitude for continuing your service.
• 27:41
  Thank you. Thank you so like so much.
• 27:43
  We hope today's episode sparked some fresh ideas.
• 27:46
  If it resonated with you, please subscribe and share it with friends.
• 27:50
  Have thoughts or suggestions?
• 27:51
  Use the feedback form in the show notes.
• 27:53
  We'd love to hear from you and don't forget to follow us on social media
• 27:57
  for highlights, behind the scenes content and updates.
• 28:00
  Thanks for listening. See you next time!