2021-04-21 OMA Agenda - Board of Trustees

Recommendation #4. JOMA should be an online, free access journal only, begin with once-a- quarter volumes, and complementary to continued publication of the Obesity Algorithm eBooks. Rationale: Initially, it is not practical to anticipate the number of quality submissions will be sufficient to publish 10 + journal articles per month. Because JOMA is an online journal, initial publications will likely be released when available. However, these publications should be categorized as if they were being issued on a quarterly “volume” basis. Within 2 years, a potential goal would be for release of monthly “volume” issues. Regarding format, it is not economically feasible to have both print and online format. In this age of digitization, most journals are gravitating to online only. Regarding funding, the gravitation of newer journals is to offer the journal free online access. The rationale is to increase readership, accelerate PubMed searchability, increase journal impact factor, and therefore increase advertisement revenue. In short, for reasons described later, strictly from a journal standpoint, this free online access model will enhance net journal revenue (i.e., think free Google Chrome marketing model). From a global society standpoint, free online access to JOMA to anyone may theoretically remove an incentive for OMA membership. Such an effect may be mitigated if OMA continues to offer its yearly updated OMA Obesity Algorithm eBook free to members, representing a single source summary of applicable articles published in JOMA. Recommendation #5. JOMA should not be viewed as an opportunity for OMA members to publish their personal opinions, experiences, expressions of advocacy and case reports which would otherwise not be published in other journals. Rationale: The success of a journal depends on its credibility. A challenge arises when strong-minded members have a style of practice with limited scientific support, but with a passionate following. Such individuals may be in society leadership positions. Especially if a particular style of practice is consistent with the consensus of a societal committee, then the society committee may craft submissions that promote their agreed upon style of practice. If these society leader and member submissions are harshly reviewed, or have their submissions rejected, then this may present political and societal challenges. The fact that a society journal may reject an article submitted by the society’s own committee members would likely not be well received. (“If we are leaders of an OMA committee, and JOMA is the journal of the OMA, then how can our submission be rejected?”)

3