Circulation Research Launches a Clinical Track for Studies in Humans
Although Circulation Research has a long-standing, venerable reputation as a major repository of cutting-edge basic and translational research, a review of its content reveals a striking paucity of clinical research. For example, only ≈8% of all articles published in the period from 2009 to 2012 were focused primarily on work performed with humans or human specimens. The editors are determined to change this situation.
The general perception of the cardiovascular research community is that Circulation Research is not an appropriate venue for disseminating clinical research. Such a view seems odd, considering that the fundamental mission of the journal is to advance our understanding of human disease and that the ultimate purpose of basic research (which constitutes the bulk of the current content of the journal) is to improve our understanding and management of cardiovascular disease in humans. So, the natural question is: why? Why are human investigations generally excluded from the perceived purview of Circulation Research?
Is a bias against publishing clinical research rooted in our mission? Certainly not. As indicated, the primary mission of Circulation Research is to illuminate the mechanisms of human disease. This is clearly stated in the Instructions to Authors on our website (http://circres.ahajournals.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml): “The journal … encourages the submission of work that uses state-of-the-art approaches to illuminate mechanisms of human disease. A special welcome is extended to translational research and to clinical research that yields fundamental insights; studies in humans or human tissues that advance our understanding of the basis of disease and the mechanism of therapies are an area of particular emphasis.” Thus, publishing clinical research is not only entirely compatible with, but also fundamentally important to, the journal’s mission.
Does our editorial policy result in a bias against publishing clinical research? Certainly not. In the statement cited, the current editors not only …