Why Do We Publish?
Dear Readers:
This month I take aim at the very core of our “raison d’être”: why do we publish? I do not mean the publisher, who may do so to answer an unmet need, enhance their standing, present an opinion, or maybe to make a little money; no, I mean the author(s), investigator(s), or other such contributors.
The initial altruistic response should be “to share knowledge with other practitioners, which will help the greatest number of people.” But is that why most of us publish? I somehow doubt it, and journals are filled with publications that support my doubts. However, there is nothing wrong with publishing for other motives—we just need to be honest with ourselves about these motivations.
A very common reason to publish is to support a product’s use in treatment of a common disease. This is currently on the increase, driven by recent government regulations. The great part about this surge is we are now going to see more about how to manage pressure injuries, non-classified (“other”) wounds, and post-surgical complications.
Another very frequent reason to publish is for academic advancement—the “publish or perish” concept, which can start at any time in an individual’s career. I have interviewed medical students who have 20-plus publications, and recently one of the award winners for best abstract at SAWC Spring 2025 was a high school student. This can become more arduous when one’s job truly depends upon the publication. Hopefully, this is the most fun and exciting for our residents and fellows when they find the wonder and fulfillment of answering an unanswered question.
I have 2 favorite personal reasons to publish. One is when you have someone you work with review an algorithm of care that you grow to use; this is most fun when you look back at outcomes and then look forward at the therapy as a protocol of care. When you see that this therapeutic plan works better than others, it is truly exciting to work toward publication. The other is big studies that do not work out for the therapy in question. These often give the best look at the natural history of the disease process, such as critical limb ischemia and venous leg disease. Sometimes these may be studies that do work out for the sponsor but also provide very good data on poorly studied pathologic processes like, deep diabetic foot ulcer.
Industry-sponsored pieces can be very interesting, as they usually understand their technology better than the clinicians that use their therapy. In addition, they have spent more thought and resources on mechanism of action than anyone else. These may come in their best form when industry partners with clinicians to develop consensus documents that can help guide us in delivering novel therapies.
There are articles that we should avoid writing, publishing, and reading. These articles tend to be add-on or ‘me too’ articles. Case reports can be very interesting, especially when focused on problems that are not well understood or cared for, or that really dictate treatment with a novel therapy since no “standard therapy” is marginally accepted.
Over the next 2 to 3 months, we will have guest editorials in this spot from our managing editorial staff. They will outline the “what, how, and whys” that will help you, the reader and the author, understand the mechanics of submission, the editorial process and timeline, and the constraints and timeline of the publishing process. The goals of this enterprise will be to enhance your experience and understanding, while increasing the reward and enjoyment of the pursuit of academic clinical scientific knowledge.
