Cureus Creates Academic Council to Guide Medical Publishing Revolution

Cureus Creates Academic Council to Guide Medical Publishing Revolution

Cur&#275us is disrupting a 200-year old medical publishing industry.
Cur&#275us, the new generation medical journal, today announced the creation of the Cur&#275us Academic Council to help launch its revolution in academic publishing.

Formed to help ensure Cur&#275us aspires to the highest academic standards, the Academic Council includes a select group of world-renowned academics and past presidents from such leading institutions as Stanford University, the Salk Institute, the University of Chicago, the National University of Singapore and the American Medical Association.

By leveraging broad ranging experience of the members, and their formidable understanding of the medical and scientific research communities, the Academic Council will help Cur&#275us to drive change within the medical publishing industry. This new model for scholarly publishing will focus increasingly on authors and reviewers of science thereby accelerating the process of paper publication and breaking down barriers to much wider readership.

“Cur&#275us is disrupting a 200-year old medical publishing industry wedded to outdated peer review practices that needlessly delay the creation and dissemination of medical knowledge,” said John Adler, MD, Cur&#275us founder and editor-in-chief. “The depth and breadth of knowledge represented by the members of our Academic Council and Editorial Board will ensure that we deliver on our promise of true and meaningful change, resulting in a far more effective means of progressing medical science.”

In addition to the Academic Council, Cur&#275us has created an editorial board comprised of nearly 150 members from major medical schools in the United States and around the world, including a who’s who of leaders from most of the major medical specialties. This broad-based coalition of Cur&#275us Editorial Board members provides both the necessary expertise and influence within the medical research community to enable a single, open-access, cross-disciplinary alternative to the nearly 6000 siloed medical journals that exist today.

“It is time for those who publish innovations to innovate the process itself,” said Jerrold F. Rosenbaum, MD, Harvard Medical School.

The complete roster of the Cur&#275us Academic Council includes:

• Professor William R. Brody, MD, PhD, President of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies
• Peter Carmel, MD, Chair of the New Jersey Medical School Department of Neurological Surgery; past President, American Medical Association
• Samuel Hellman, MD, University of Chicago Medicine
• Donald Kennedy, PhD, President Emeritus of Stanford University
• Professor John Wong Eu Li, MBBS, Deputy Chief Executive, National University Health System, Singapore

More information about the Cur&#275us Editorial Board can be found at


About Cur&#275us

Based in Palo Alto, California, Cur&#275us is the new generation medical journal. Leveraging the power of an online, crowd-sourced platform, Cur&#275us promotes medical research by focusing the publishing process on the people who create it, resulting in better research, faster publication and easier access for everyone. Leading physicians from all over the world have joined the unparalleled Cur&#275us Editorial Board to lend their support to the medical publishing revolution. For more information, visit

Changing The Rules of Traditional Medical Publishing

Changing The Rules of Traditional Medical Publishing

We don’t typically associate rejection with elation but a recent article in The Scientist suggests that getting your academic paper is not be such a bad thing.

A study of rejected academic papers compared their citation history after eventual publication with those never having been rejected. Somewhat surprisingly there appears to be upside to the initial repudiation.

Vincent Calgano, an evolutionary biologist and ecologist at the Institute for Agricultural Research in Sophia Antipolis, France gathered and studied data from The Thomson Reuters Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge citation indexing service. They studied papers from 16 different fields published between 2006 and 2008 and emailed more than 200,000 corresponding authors from the papers. Not surprisingly, papers that were rejected tended to be resubmitted to journals with a lower Impact Factor.

Wikipedia killed me.

What did surprise researchers was the fact that these previously rejected papers tended to be cited more frequently than papers that didn’t go through the submission gauntlet.

The research group concluded that papers that get rejected are often rewritten and polished more than others. This continued editing may have improved the paper, therefore enhancing its likelihood to be cited. Alternatively, authors only went to the effort of resubmitting a manuscript when they were convinced the paper did have merit.

Regardless of why rejected papers might get cited more frequently, this study illustrates the absurdity of the traditional review process in an era where technology has allowed us to evolve. For instance, it has been convincingly demonstrated that Wikipedia is at least as accurate as the “expertly” edited Encyclopedia Britannica and that Top Songs on iTunes are far more reflective of broad public interest than the Billboard 100.

Cureus has designed its medical publishing system so that editorial capriciousness, which is common to traditional peer review, is replaced by intelligent crowd-sourced scoring. The Cureus Scholarly Impact Quotient (SIG) is designed to separate the wheat from the chaff.

So while all papers are published, only the best articles with the highest SIQ tend to be read by the most number of people. Lower quality papers are still available to the public online. While they may not be as popular as the higher scored paper, they will serve as a valuable resource for a niche segment. And all of this content is good for the scientific community at large.

Ultimately the Cureus SIQ system facilitates a process for a much wider body of ideas to enter the conversation of scientific discourse. Unlike the traditional review process where individual papers can be “killed” as a result of personal bias, politics or a bad day at the office, crowd intelligence becomes a core filter.