In June 2020, Peter Swaan, Ph.D., completed his tenure as editor-in-chief of AAPS’ journal Pharmaceutical Research after more than 11 years of dedication and leadership.
Under Swaan’s leadership, Pharmaceutical Research has upheld successful metrics, including high submission and readership numbers, global representation, successful Impact Factors, and high Altmetric scores.
“Pharmaceutical Research has remained a premier pharmaceutical sciences journal that authors in academia and industry rely on for the latest developments in their field,” shared Swaan in his recent Pharmaceutical Research editorial. “I am proud to say that our journal has consistently ranked as having one of the highest downloads per article numbers in the health sciences portfolio of Nature-Springer journals.”
Swaan has been an integral publications leader within AAPS, presenting at AAPS Annual Meeting and Expositions and PharmSci 360s on plagiarism and other publishing topics, and organizing the first AAPS Council of Editors, which is a private gathering of editors from pharmaceutical science journals with the goal of discussing and potentially solving issues seen throughout the ecosystem.
“The opportunity to serve AAPS and its members has been an honor and privilege I will never forget,” expressed Swaan in the editorial. “I wish my successor, Tonglei Li, the best of luck and wish Pharmaceutical Research continuing excellence in its mission as a premier choice journal in the pharmaceutical sciences and a flagship journal of AAPS.”
Swaan will continue to serve as a professor and the chair of the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences and associate dean for Research and Advanced Graduate Studies at the University of Maryland.
Learn more about Swaan’s experience as editor-in-chief through this Q&A.
What scientific trends did you see throughout your tenure as editor-in-chief?
Over the course of a little over a decade, we published on many innovative developments that may have started in other scientific fields but were quickly adopted in pharmaceutical sciences. In general, scientific trends follow initial, breakthroughs discoveries (e.g., CRISPR/Cas9) that are implemented in various fields, such as the Omics. To introduce readers to these developments, one of the most exciting features we implemented in Pharmaceutical Research was the publication of theme issues around emerging topics (or important updates on existing areas).
The rationale for doing this was to bundle a series of articles and reviews on a particular topic to allow our readers to quickly familiarize themselves with a new scientific area. A nice side effect was that it brought new authors to the journal who would have not normally considered Pharmaceutical Research as a publication venue for their work.
The theme issues were commissioned to one or more guest editors who introduce the topic in an editorial and provide the reader an overview of the theme and highlight the most important discoveries in that area. Initially, these theme issues were indicated in the print edition of the journal by a colored margin so they could be easily identified. Now that the journal has transitioned to a fully online format, the theme issues are organized under the rubric “topical collections” on the Pharmaceutical Research website.
Looking back over the years, some of the issues that I personally thought were groundbreaking covered 3D printing, protein formulation, antibody-drug conjugates, cell-based therapies, personalized medicine, theranostics, and bionanosensors, to name a few. Also, contemporary and newsworthy topics such as Medicines in Space were very enjoyable to read.
What was the most fulfilling part of being editor-in-chief?
There were many parts of the job that were extremely fulfilling. In no particular order, it was very satisfying to interact with scientists from all over the world. Further, working with a great team of editors and dedicated staff at AAPS and Springer Nature made my job so much easier. I couldn’t have managed this role without them. During the process I also learned a lot about the publication process and how to identify new scientific areas, new authors, etc.
Most satisfying was the chance to promote junior faculty and students since they represent the future of our field and their positive experiences with the journal pave the way for them to become life-long contributors. Any help I could give them along the way will pay itself back in the future.
Of course, reading about the latest scientific developments and their application to pharmaceutical sciences was extremely fulfilling. As scientists, we are all eager learners, and discovering new applications and techniques amongst the thousands of submissions was my greatest reward. Overall, I think the experience made me into a better scientist, and I can apply that learned knowledge to my own research well into the future.
What was the hardest part of being editor-in-chief?
The one area that perhaps took most of my time were some of the ethics cases. About 7–8 years ago, the publishing world started making automated screening tools for plagiarism (e.g., iThenticate) available to editors. This tool screens each manuscript word-for-word against a database of existing literature, internet databases, and web sources. The result is a similarity score that reveals how much of a manuscript has been copied verbatim from previously published sources. It is an incredibly powerful way to quickly screen a manuscript for unethical copying and pasting, but it is not without drawbacks.
As with any bioinformatics algorithm, you need to be aware of the default parameters the software uses, such as the length of a string of words considered a “copy.” If you set that window too small, you quickly end up with a very high similarity score for almost any manuscript. Therefore, it is not an exact science and needs an editor to carefully judge whether a manuscript has plagiarism issues or not.
For example, the Methods section of a manuscript frequently contains similar content, but we don’t typically consider this a major issue, unless it has been copied word for word. We would then ask the author to rephrase this section or simply state “as described previously” with an appropriate citation or “as described previously, with the following modifications.”
We also learned very quickly that there were strong cultural differences about copying existing literature, and we had to educate authors as to the correct way of paraphrasing previous work for Pharmaceutical Research. Of course, I have dealt with a few authors who became irate after we pointed out alleged (!) copying in their work. This was more a pride factor that fell into the category of “how dare you accuse me of unethical behavior,” typically followed by an argument and justification as to how their work simply could not be considered plagiarism. I would then calmly explain that we did not accuse them of plagiarism, but we were simply pointing out high similarity with published literature. Usually this would end the discussion, but a few outliers would not let it go and resorted to name-calling and *insert expletives* in their responses. Those were rare moments.
The most difficult ethics cases were those involving data falsification, duplication, and redundant publication (i.e., when parts of an article had been published elsewhere before or after acceptance by our journal). These cases took most of my time, since it required scientific forensics, such as comparing images. Importantly, I had to make sure that authors got a fair assessment when a whistleblower would alert us to alleged wrongdoing. Luckily, there is an organization named COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) that provides flowcharts on how to deal with various types of scientific misconduct. Each Springer Nature editor is a member of COPE and can access their guidance documents.
What advice can you offer to emerging scientists trying to get published?
To many junior scientists, writing technical manuscripts does not come naturally, but it can be learned and practice makes perfect. In other words, you need to write and revise your manuscript often. Send it to your colleagues and friends who can give you constructive feedback, especially people outside your field.
An important aspect of writing a manuscript is how you tell a good story and how you sell your science. I always tell my students that they need to be able to explain the important aspects of their work to their family and continuously ask themselves “why did I do this?” and “why is this important?” Also, ask yourself “Who cares?” When you keep asking these questions it almost becomes second nature to tell your story in an easy-to-understand way.
A lot of the manuscripts that I rejected during my tenure as editor-in-chief did not address the fundamental questions that every scientist should ask about their own work. If you can’t explain the importance of your work in the introduction section then why should anyone care about it? Of course, there are also cultural barriers to writing, especially if you’re a not a native English speaker (I’m not). But this is where practice comes in. You are not writing prose. Scientific jargon and sentence structure can be learned and this comes back to practice.
Another word of advice is to grow a thick skin and realize that the reviewers and editors are just human beings. Never take a review personally, however unfair it may be. And if you do, complain to your partner or friend and respond to the reviews in a courteous manner. Remember that the reviewer is always right, no matter how wrong they are! (There are exceptions to this, of course. If the reviewer is incorrect, just point this out in a respectful way; it may just be a matter of opinion).
Lastly, I would recommend that you talk to the editor handling your manuscript. Unlike some other journals, AAPS’ editors-in-chief are always available to authors. If there are reviewer comments that need clarification, they are there to help. Likewise, if you strongly disagree with a reviewer or deem their comments unfair, speak with your editor on how to best address this. They may have further insight from personal notes the reviewer left them. In the end, editors are there to help you succeed and get your best science published.
Now that your tenure has finished, what do you plan to do next?
Right before COVID-19 hit the U.S., I was asked by my dean to take on the role of Department Chair. My first action was to bring a team together to develop plans for shutting down our research laboratories and continue operations for sensitive instrumentation. You can imagine that I have had enough on my plate to keep me busy!
In terms of putting my editorial experience to good use, I am looking forward to staying active in the publishing world. Educating junior scientists on publishing and publication ethics, especially in non-English speaking countries, is one of my passions, and I am looking forward to being able to travel again to pass on my knowledge in this area. Of course, video conferences are just as effective, especially as many parts of the world are still in lockdown. Professionally, I have always cherished my interactions with AAPS, which I joined as a graduate student, and I am looking forward to continuing my contributions to the organization.
On a personal level, I’d like to resume my passion for climbing and trekking in the Himalayas. I have visited the Annapurna and Everest regions in Nepal several times and just fallen in love with this gorgeous country and its people. Next year, I am planning to climb Mera peak in the Everest (Sagarmatha) region. One area that I would really like to explore is the Karakoram range which borders Pakistan, India, and China, and is home to some of the most imposing >8,000m (26,000 ft) peaks in the world, such as K2, Broad Peak, and Gasherbrum. It is in a very remote area that can only be accessed by hiking through unforgiving terrain and will require much planning and organization. It will be a serious challenge, but I can hardly wait!
Read and share Swaan’s final editorial as editor-in-chief, Farewell Message from the Editor-in-Chief, in Pharmaceutical Research for free.