© 1999 American Heart Association, Inc.
Editorial |
Eight Years Behind the Masthead
From the Editor in Chief and Associate Editors, Circulation Research.
Correspondence to Stephen F. Vatner, MD, Allegheny University of the Health Sciences, 320 East North Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15212. E-mail svatner{at}pgh.auhs.edu
Key Words: cardiovascular research • molecular biology • vascular biology
The editorship of Circulation Research changes as of this issue. We wish Dr. Marbán and his new Associate Editors well and take this opportunity to highlight some of the key features of our editorship, which began in 1991 at Boston and ends in 1999 at Pittsburgh.
It is important to keep in mind that in 1991 the application of molecular biology to cardiovascular research was well underway. Our goal at that time was not only to capitalize on the new science that was emerging but also to integrate it with physiology. This was difficult to accomplish, since the two scientific camps enjoyed little communication. We believe one of the major strengths of this Journal is its place as a forum to present the best of both of these scientific disciplines. At present, most articles use at least some part of a molecular approach, but most often combine it with some functional data. This integrative approach is becoming more popular in medical schools as well as at the National Institutes of Health in terms of new programs.1
A second goal was to incorporate more vascular biology into
Circulation Research. We believe this effort has also been
successful, as reflected by the increasing number of basic vascular
biology papers published in the Journal. Currently, at least
50% of the manuscripts published deal primarily with the vessel rather
than the myocardium (Figure 1
).
|
A third goal was to involve the European and Asian scientific
communities to a greater extent in the Journal. With the
help of European and Asian Associate Editors and increased membership
on the Editorial Board, this effort has been successful, as reflected
by the demographics of our manuscripts shown in Figure 2. Interestingly, slightly less than 50%
of the total number of manuscripts received were from the United
States, whereas the number of manuscripts published from the United
States exceeded 50% of the total. We believe that the international
participation in this Journal will increase further in the
next few years.
|
The fourth goal was to improve the time to review and the time to
publication as well as to improve the profile of the
Journal, as reflected by the Institute for Scientific
Information impact factor. Improvement in these areas is summarized in
the following figures. Since 1990, the total number of new submissions
received has doubled (Figure 3), while
the time from submission to first decision has decreased by nearly half
(Figure 4). Likewise, the
Journal's manuscript acceptance rate has also been
cut in half, decreasing from 49% to 22% (Figure 5). Although time from acceptance
to publication has gone down by approximately one third (Figure 6), it still needs to be reduced further.
However, that is in the hands of the publisher. Notably, the
Journal's impact factor has jumped from 5.37 to 8.44
(Figure 7). Importantly,
Circulation Research rates even higher in terms of long-term
impact factor. When impact factor is analyzed over several
years, Circulation Research jumps to number 15 of all
medical journals.2
|
|
|
|
|
Although progress has been made, there is ample opportunity for the new team to improve on our record. Indeed, this Journal is poised for another stride forward.
We appreciate having had the opportunity to serve the American
Heart Association and the cardiovascular research
scientific community. Most importantly, we extend our appreciation to
all of the individuals who made the success of Circulation
Research possible. These include the hardworking and diligent
office staff, the Scientific Publishing Committee, who accepted our
suggestion to provide the financial support that allowed for
communication by fax and Federal Express, one of the key factors in the
reduced time for review of manuscripts, and the Editorial Board and the
scientific community, who have done such a superb job in reviewing
manuscripts in a timely fashion and submitting manuscripts of high
quality. The histogram reflecting the distribution of review times by
Editorial Board members appears in Figure 8.
|
There were difficult times as well. The most difficult involved
moving the Editorial Office from Boston to Pittsburgh in the midst of
our tenure. Additional problems encountered included overlapping
submissions from some authors and a surprisingly high incidence of
negative responses from some reviewers, as reflected by the
distribution shown in Figure 8
. Whereas many members of the
Editorial Board never refused to review a manuscript, the percentage of
negative responses from some was surprisingly high.
It is tempting to muse that reports of this nature will change radically in the next century. As noted above, we began our editorship after a revolution in basic research and now end the editorship with a new revolution in information dissemination underway. We predict that in 5 years from now, different yardsticks will be used to measure the success of a journal, and that with more and more information available electronically, the very role of classical journals will change. We trust that the careful nature of the peer review process characteristic of Circulation Research will ensure its place in the future.
References
1.
Lenfant C. Integrative physiology: remember the
big picture. Circulation. 1995;91:1901.
2. Garfield E. Long-term vs. short term journal impact: does it matter? Physiologist. 1998;41:113–115.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  T. H. Hintze and E. Marban Two AHA Councils Become One : Ringing Out the Old and Bringing in the New Circ. Res., August 6, 1999; 85(3): 219 - 220. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||