An Analysis of Articles Published in JAPMA in 2004

To the Editor:

I have reviewed the articles published in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association (JAPMA) in the six issues of the 2004 calendar year. It appeared to me that there were fewer articles authored by podiatrists than I would expect to see and more authored by professionals in other fields. In addition, there was a surprisingly large number of articles originating outside the United States. This led me to conduct a statistical analysis of these articles published in 2004.

There were 60 featured articles and 15 clinical articles (Clinically Speaking or Clinically Illustrated) published in 2004. A statistical breakdown of the featured articles for each issue is shown in Table 1. If a given article had at least one author who was a doctor of podiatric medicine (DPM), even if the DPM was not the corresponding author, the article is included in the “DPM Yes” column. The “DPM No” column consists of articles that had no DPM authors. If an article’s corresponding author was located in the United States, it is listed as “US Author”; if the article’s corresponding author was located outside the United States, it is listed as “Other Author.”

Of the 60 featured articles published in 2004, only 22 (37%) included a DPM as an author. For many of these articles, the DPM was not the corresponding author. Only 38 (63%) featured articles had a US-based corresponding author. Moreover, many of the articles that had a US-based corresponding author had foreign authors as well.

There were 15 clinical articles (Clinically Speaking or Clinically Illustrated) published in JAPMA in 2004. A statistical breakdown of these shorter articles for each issue appears in Table 2. Authorship information was determined in the same manner as for the featured articles. Of the 15 clinical articles published in 2004, 14 (93%) were authored by DPMs and 15 (100%) were authored in the United States.

This analysis indicates that few US-based DPMs are publishing articles in our profession’s primary journal, which has won awards year after year. With approximately 14,000 practicing DPMs, now eight schools of podiatric medicine, a substantial number of noted speakers and researchers in the United States, and hundreds of residents throughout the country, the low number of articles published by US podiatrists in JAPMA is astounding. I hope to see an increase in publication of articles by US-based DPMs that are more relevant to the practicing podiatric physician in this country.

Table 1. Featured Articles Published in JAPMA in 2004

Table 1. Featured Articles Published in JAPMA in 2004

Table 2. Clinical Articles Published in JAPMA in 2004

Table 2. Clinical Articles Published in JAPMA in 2004

Editor’s Response

Warren S. Joseph DPM Editor

In her concise and challenging letter, Dr. Barbara Schlefman raises a number of interesting issues on which I could comment. Not the least of these is her conclusion that, given our 14,000 podiatric physicians in the United States, now eight schools of podiatric medicine, and hundreds of current residents, more articles should be published in JAPMA by US podiatrists. Her conclusion is based on a 1-year survey of articles published by JAPMA in 2004. I could use this as a jumping-off point for decrying the overall lack of “publish or perish” ethic in our educational institutions or chastising our residents or the average practitioner for not having the drive or direction to write papers (and someday perhaps I will). However, I would rather take this opportunity to explore the cited numbers in more depth and discuss what I will refer to as the “globalization of JAPMA.”

Dr. Schlefman points out that in 2004, only 37% of featured articles were authored by DPMs and 63% of such articles originated in the United States. I do not see this as a negative. The year under study was a unique one. Our May/June 2004 issue was a special issue featuring original research from our gifted colleagues in the United Kingdom. Much of this work was in critical areas such as biomechanics that are often given short shrift by practicing DPMs in the United States but are vitally important to our approach to the foot and ankle. The March/April 2004 issue was an exceptional review of issues in internal medicine that face podiatrists on a daily basis. Who is better qualified to share their knowledge on this topic than MD internists from Brown University? I would also like to point out that this special issue, which I am sure will be saved and referred to frequently by anyone needing to take board examinations or explore an unusual condition, was initiated and brought to fruition by “one of our own,” Douglas J. Glod, DPM.

The commitment of two out of six issues to important topics that may or may not be addressed by DPMs based in the United States would, of course, have a major impact on any exploration of the number of articles authored by US podiatrists in any single year. Comparing 2004 with 2003 shows that in the earlier year, 65% of featured papers were authored by DPMs and 71% came from the United States. Moreover, in 2004, two-thirds (67.5%) of all papers that were submitted to JAPMA were from the United States. It should be pointed out that the Journal staff has never made a decision on publication based on the author’s degree or country of origin. The entire review process is double-blinded so that neither the reviewer nor the author knows the name or any other identifying details of the other.

Furthermore, we are witnessing a phenomenon that I referred to as the “globalization of JAPMA.” In 2004 alone, authors from 16 countries representing all continents except South America and Antarctica submitted manuscripts to JAPMA. This trend has been building for a number of years now, but the momentum has grown significantly with our enhanced presence on the Web (JAPMA Online, at www.japmaonline.org) and the increased ease of international submission since the January 2004 launch of our online submission and peer review system, AllenTrack. The Journal is fast becoming known as the foremost international scientific journal of the foot and ankle. This is not just the musings of a proud editorial staff. Our “Impact Factor,” a measure of the frequency with which articles from a particular journal are cited by other authors, is among the highest of any journal dealing with the foot and ankle. The desire of the international community to publish in the Journal, including MDs and PhDs of various specialties, is further evidence of our growing prestige worldwide. When I asked an author who happened to be a European orthopedic surgeon why he chose to submit his manuscript to JAPMA, he responded, “The JAPMA is the world-leading journal on podiatric surgery/medicine, thus it is read around the globe. This is the reason why we presented our study to your journal to deliver the information on a wide range.”

And the trend continues. As I write this, my “in-box” contains papers that need to be evaluated from not only US podiatrists (the overwhelming majority) but also the United Kingdom, Australia, Spain, Turkey, and India. There are papers from many unique specialties, including one from a PhD anthropologist here in the United States. This globalization of JAPMA should be embraced by every member of APMA. It should be a major point of pride that our association’s scientific journal, which started out as Pedic Items nearly 100 years ago, has blossomed into a major international player in the dissemination of new information dealing with the foot and ankle. We hope that the globalization of JAPMA, by breaking down national boundaries in the research world, will better advance scientific knowledge in podiatric medicine, which is the ultimate aim of the Journal. We invite readers to let us know their opinions about this growing trend and its implications for APMA’s scientific journal.