Circulation Research. 2000;87:261-263
(Circulation Research. 2000;87:261.)
© 2000 American Heart Association, Inc.
Circulation Research Editors’ Yearly Report: 1999–2000
Eduardo Marbán,
Roberto Bolli,
Gerda Breitwieser,
Rudi Busse,
Hal Dietz,
Masao Endoh,
Toren Finkel,
David Kass,
Charles Lowenstein,
Marlene Rabinovitch,
Gordon Tomaselli
From the Editor in Chief and Associate Editors,
Circulation Research.
Correspondence to Eduardo Marbán, MD, PhD, Circulation Research Editor, Johns Hopkins University, 2700 Lighthouse Point East, Suite 230, Baltimore, MD 21224. E-mail circulation.research{at}circresearch.com
Key Words: scientific publishing • citations • performance
 |
Introduction
|
|---|
After one year at the helm of
Circulation
Research, we reflect
on the status of the journal and preview its
direction. First,
we call your attention to several notable changes in
the Instructions
to Authors. The journal has experienced an increase in
submissions
of 18% relative to the previous 12 months; so far in the
year
2000, the increase equals 29% over the comparable quarters of
1999
(Figure 1
). Nevertheless, our
efforts to maximize the information
content of the printed page have
succeeded to the degree that
we have been able to liberalize length
limits and launch several
new categories of papers. The restriction on
the number of words
has been increased to 6,000 for Original
Contributions and to
8,000 for UltraRapid Communications. Although
online supplementary
information can still be posted, enabling full
documentation
of methods and supporting data, the word limits for
Materials
and Methods sections have been lifted. This gives authors the
flexibility
to structure their papers at will, as long as they adhere
to
the prescribed overall limits on words and display items. We
have
also reinstituted the category of Reviews; at 10,000 words,
Reviews
enable a definitive summary of a fairly broad area and
complement the
more focused MiniReviews. One last change, announced
recently, is the
institution of a new manuscript category entitled
Reports. This
category provides a forum for rapid publication
of high-priority
scientific findings that can be explained and
documented in a compact
manner. Longer papers can still receive
expedited review and
publication in the online-only UltraRapid
Communications category.
Reports, in contrast, appear in the
print journal but are much shorter
than UltraRapids. Full up-to-date-Instructions
to Authors for all
categories can be found at
http://circres.ahajournals.org/misc/ifora.shtml.
View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. Number of submissions to Circulation
Research, by calendar year. The data for 1999 and 2000 are
divided into 6-month intervals. The transition to the present
editorship occurred July 1, 1999.
|
|
From an operations viewpoint, Circulation Research pioneered
the conversion to electronic operations among the American Heart
Association journals over the last year. This transition, along with
our commitment to minimizing delays at the editorial level, has
resulted in considerable improvements in efficiency. Figure 2 shows cumulative 12-month data for
times to first decision. For all manuscript categories containing
original data, the average time to first decision equaled 3.2 calendar
weeks. A comparably brief time (3.1 weeks) was required to render first
decisions on MiniReviews. For accepted papers, the times from
submission to publication reached an all-time minimum of 16.5 weeks
(Figure 3). This was due both to
abbreviation of the time from submission to acceptance as well
as a marked truncation of the publication lag (ie, the time from
acceptance to publication). Given the delays intrinsic to the
peer-review process, it is difficult to imagine that we will be able to
do much better with regard to times to acceptance while
maintaining rigorous standards of scientific evaluation. Nevertheless,
we will continue to strive to improve our performance even in
the face of rising submission volumes, primarily by accelerating the
production process. The Editors have been working closely with
the publisher (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins) and with the peer-review
software development team (Medical Support Systems) toward this common
goal, and will continue to do so.
View larger version (43K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. Times to first decision by manuscript category,
July 1, 1999–June 30, 2000, and the weighted average of all three
categories.
|
|
View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3. Times from submission to publication by calendar
year and, for 1999 to 2000, at 6-month intervals. The editorial
transition occurred July 1, 1999. Each bar shows the time from
submission to acceptance (unshaded) above the publication lag
(ie, the time from acceptance to publication; shaded). The
latter is presently determined almost entirely by the time required
by the publisher for the final production process.
|
|
Figure 4 shows the breakdown of final
decisions from July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. The overall
acceptance rate during this period equaled 23%. The vast
majority of these acceptances came from revised manuscripts or
de novo resubmissions; only 1% of initial decisions were
acceptances. Note also that 3% of submissions were rejected as
"inappropriate" at the editorial level, and another 11% were
turned down after an accelerated "triage" evaluation in which the
Editors sought the opinion of at least one external reviewer. Most of
these accelerated reviews were performed by Editorial Board members;
indeed, without the dedication of our Board and our reviewers in
general, the efficiencies that we have been able to harness would have
been impossible.
View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4. Final decision breakdown, July 1, 1999–June 30,
2000, lumping together Original Contributions, Brief Communications,
and UltraRapid Communications.
|
|
Figure 5 shows various measures of
citation impact over the last 4 years. Panel A plots the impact factor.
The 1999 value of 8.281 reflects an increase over 1998 and a maintained
rank of No. 2 within the Cardiac and Cardiovascular
Systems category. This ranking is remarkable in that Circulation
Research has not published meeting abstracts, which artificially
inflate the impact factor. As a corollary, the citation half-life of
Circulation Research is 7.2 years (Figure 5B), the
longest among the major cardiovascular journals. This
means that papers published here continue to attract a large number of
citations many years after they appear. In fact, the "double
product" of 59.6 (impact factor times cited half-life) for
Circulation Research consistently leads the pack
among cardiovascular journals (Figure 5C), with
the closest competitors coming in at 54.5 and 39.8 in 1999. The
present Editors are happy to bask in the glory of these exemplary
ratings, which in reality reflect the journal’s performance
during Steve Vatner’s editorship; it will be another year before the
citation indices begin to include papers that we have handled since
taking over.
View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5. Citation measures for 1996 to 1999. A, Two-year
impact factor for Circulation Research, as determined by
ISI®.1 B, Cited half-life (in years) for
Circulation Research and four other major
cardiovascular journals, as determined by
ISI®.1 JACC, Journal of the American
College of Cardiology; JMCC, Journal of
Molecular and Cellular Cardiology. C, The
double product of impact factor and cited half-life for
Circulation Research and four other major
cardiovascular journals. Double product provides a
composite index of citation frequency and citation longevity, thereby
negating the effect of short-lived citations such as those to meeting
abstracts.
|
|
Where is the journal headed? The Editors will stay the course. Our
mantra is "mechanistic research": we require technical excellence,
but we have rejected many technically outstanding papers that fell
short of providing major insights into mechanism. We will seek to
maintain a healthy balance of vascular biology and myocardial biology,
remaining ever receptive to areas of scientific opportunity and
innovation, whatever the tissue. We continue to welcome work on human
subjects, as long as it illuminates fundamental pathophysiology and
pathogenesis. In fact, the journal has published 14 articles in its
Clinical Research section over the past 12 months, with more to come.
Finally, the Editors wish to thank the reviewers and authors for their
exceptional contributions to the journal. We welcome your suggestions
and feedback at circulation.research@circresearch.com.
|
References
|
|---|
1.
SCI®
Journal Citation Reports®: a bibliometric
analysis of science journals in the ISI
®
database. Philadelphia, Pa: Institute for Scientific Information,
Inc
®; 1999.
Top
Introduction
References