FRONTIERS IN BIOSCIENCE;
INTRODUCTION



The current way of reporting scientific communication is becoming outdated. For example, it normally takes months for a scientific manuscript to be published and to become accessible to other scientists. In addition, there is as yet no forum for the presentation of sonograms, ecocardiograms or other types of research that involve real-time demonstration of important events. Printed materials do not allow interaction with the data or searching of the journal key words that can highlight specific manuscripts or parts of a manuscript that may be of interest to the scientist. Obtaining an entire manuscript on line is not yet possible and requires a visit to the library. If the library does not carry the particular journal, the investigator has to wait to receive the article by fax or mail. These problems are becoming compounded by the current rules governing the publication of scientific articles. An inordinate amount of money has to be invested in order to distribute scientific communications. Manuscript processing fees, page charges, and the cost of reprints of an article leads to an average cost of about $1000 or more. In addition, investigators are billed additional charges for the reproduction of color figures. It is becoming difficult for productive scientists to support publication of their hard work. Particularly, it is difficult to find sufficient funds for a high rate of publication in an average-sized NIH grant.

The myriad of problems associated with current strategies of presenting scientific information and discoveries are incentives to create electronic scientific journals that obviate all these problems. The electronic journals offer the following advantages over the current methods of publication.

    Development of platforms that allow real time events to be presented and would allow interactivity with the presented data
    Marked shortening of the duration between submission of scientific communications and their presentation on internet
    Development of simple objective criteria for the peer review process
    Free, world-wide, access
    Elimination of the need for reprints
    Elimination of the cost of publishing color images
    Use of multimedia to enhance presentation of the data
    Significant reduction in the cost of publication
    Significant improvement in scientific communication and use of searchable terms, texts, and key words
    Linkage between the references cited in a given article with those listed in the Med-line or other databases
    Linkage of the methods presented in a given article with product information and a detailed methodology presented by the manufacturer of the product
    Significant contribution to the environment by the development of paperless scientific communication across the world
    The ability to allow not only a few editor-selected individuals, but also the entire scientific community to act as the reviewers of a given manuscript
    Potential development of an on-line library of the future

Given these distinct attributes of an electronic journal, we have attempted to create such a forum for scientific communication. It is hoped that various investigators across the world and the society as a whole will benefit from such a platform. In addition, the most up-to date news, databases, many search strategies, links, forms and other valuable information are presented in this platform to greatly help scientists who use internet in their day-to-day research activities. Links to the products of various manufacturers will ease finding the appropriate compound, material or reagent that are important to the investigators.

Peer review process seems to properly function in the filtration of scientific information for accuracy, and in reducing the possibility of publishing erroneous information. In addition, we have a section called "letter to editor". In this section the views or specific criticisms of readers regarding specific articles will be displayed. The investigator(s) will be given the opportunity to respond to and if necessary to improve or revise the manuscript. The role of peer review process in preventing publication of fraudulent information is controversial. Certainly this process has not eradicated fraud in science and is unlikely to prevent the appearance of erroneous or fraudulent materials in electronic journals. To some extent, scientists may be immune from use of such fraudulent information since they have the ability to test the validity of such information in their own laboratory. However, the general public is not as fortunate in this endeavor. Therefore, it is quite challenging as how to cope with this particular issue. The non-scientist who accesses the on-line information bears the distinct responsibility to get the appropriate guidance from various scientists who are in a position to evaluate the available information. For this reason, we have provided a forum for the public in order to pose their questions about a given article. These questions will be sent to the authors of the published data and their response(s) will be posted. Fortunately, the opportunity exists that if the fraudulent nature of a given published material has been revealed, its on-line access can be terminated. The significant advantages of on-line electronic form of scientific communication greatly outweigh the shortcomings that are potentially associated with it. Undoubtedly, electronic journals will greatly facilitate scientific communication and are likely to replace our traditional publication strategies.

S. Tabibzadeh, MD