Abstract:

As we enter the third millennium, we witness the rapid continuation of the unprecedented explosion of scientific information. Today, we are fortunate to have access to Medline and to electronic journals covering the mammoth fields of biological sciences. It presumably assures us that we can no longer miss important relevant recent publications crucial to the continuation of our original line of research. Unfortunately, we witness today a dangerous trend that despite having access to Index Medicus and additional abstracting systems covering the literature prior to 1960, younger investigators tend to refrain from citing "older" publications, assuming that they are already passe. Obviously, it necessitates spending time in libraries. But who, in these "modern" computerized days, has time to wait? Over the last few years, I tried to find out what was behind this behavior. I took the liberty of writing to authors who published papers in my own field of research and who failed to cite crucial key publications from the pre-Medline era, without which I believe they cannot even start to understand the evolution of their own current research. The following are only several of the responses I received: "I do not read the Journals which you claimed had included papers relevant for my research paper." "I was unaware of the publications you proposed, but will be happy to read them if you can send them to me. I might consider citing them in my future review on the subject." "Restrictions over the numbers of reference permissible prevented me from citing the proposed articles." "The library at my university gives me a hard time trying to retrieve older literature." "The focus of my article was to narrow down only on the most relevant current information available on the subject." "Reviews covering the topic of my current investigations had recently been published." (However, no such review was cited by the author.) "I do not have the time to comment on your thoughts in a scholarly fashion. However, bear in mind that the papers you had listed have not gone completely unnoticed." (Really?) "You will recognize that it is not easy to find papers from several years unless they are cited by others, as there is literally too much information about" "As a newcomer to this field of research, I neglected to read relatively old articles and I restricted myself to critically report the most common views on the subject. Besides, I was unable to receive the older articles you mentioned, because they are unavailable in the library of our relatively new university." "I had, as you guessed, not seen your work. I am unfamiliar with most of the journals in which you publish—-and also I am not an immunologist." The following is also a reminder how certain line of research might become extinct. A review on the role of proteinases in tissue damage concluded that proteinases might also synergize with oxidants and with additional pro-inflammatory agents. Yet, publications since 1960 which had described this phenomenon had not been included either in this particular paper or in any of the papers on the subject. A main line of research had proposed that cationic proteins from leukocytes might kill bacteria by altering the permeability of their membranes. Yet, none of a very large series of investigations by others since the early 1970s, which had proposed an alternative possible mechanism suggesting that cationic proteins might kill microorganisms also by their ability to induce bacteriolysis, are ever cited anywhere. Because of a change in nomenclature, pioneering investigations from 1951-1957, which had described the properties and mechanisms of action of bacterial cell-sensitizing agents (HF), had literally been eliminated because today this factor is called lipoteichoic acid (LTA). One simple sentence, and including proper citations stressing that LTA was previously called HF, might have sufficed to prevent unnecessary repetitions of the same experiments. The following proposals might be adopted by editorial boards of journals to assure and also fight against the "disregard syndrome." (i) Every paper should include an introductory historical coverage of the "pioneering" investigations on which the current research is based. (ii) Emeriti professors, who might have read "older investigations" in a particular field of research, be nominated as referees. This might also stimulate emeriti professors to be reinvolved in the activities of the scientific community. (iii) A "Letters to the Editor" section in every Journal be established where authors can alert their readers to the existence of "old" literature on the subject. (iv) To combat the unacceptable attitude where publications which do not "fit" current thoughts and ideas are simply concealed from the modern reader. This is unethical and also self-defeating. Only a strong stand by Editorial Boards against the "disregard syndrome" might help to advance honest science.