Matching Scientific with Societal Interests: Charges for the New Editor

Michael J. Holtzman, M.D.

Departments of Medicine and Cell Biology Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, Missouri

	Article

Top Article

On the basis of the work of an outstanding group of editors, reviewers, and contributing authors as well as unwavering support from its societal sponsorship, the Red Journal has come to represent the best of respiratory cell and molecular biology. Accordingly, AJRCMB is now ranked first among journals that target basic science research on the respiratory system (including cell biology, molecular biology, and molecular physiology).¹ Even more impressively, the Journal has also assumed a leadership position among all respiratory reporting (including applied physiology and clinical research). Thus, within the ten years of its existence, AJRCMB has moved up to the number two position among the 24 journals that aim to cover respiratory research (second by only a slim margin to its progenitor, the Blue Journal). After some initial reluctance, the thoracic community is gradually taking full advantage of cellular and molecular power to understand normal biology and define mechanisms of disease. This decisional drift naturally reflects the inevitable march of cell and molecular biology into our research labs and our clinical operations. Any doubts about present and future impacts of the "new" biologies are rapidly dispelled by a check on the last round of research initiatives from the National Institutes of Health or the newest endeavors in clinical diagnosis and treatment. The pipelines for research and clinical activities are both jammed with new molecules as well as new drugs to emulate or regulate them, new vectors to deliver them, and new ways to identify more of them more quickly.

So what do all of these very fortunate trends mean for the new editor of the Red Journal? Mainly, it means that I am luckily charged with continuing a tradition of excellence and riding an inescapable wave of at least the near future. An obvious corollary is that I should not rock the boat but continue to keep it off the rocks. And to a large extent, I will do just that. But my own tradition as a navigator also forces me to ask how I can help make the Red Journal even better. In that context, I see my editorial responsibilities in two broad areas.

First, leading journals such as the Red Journal should also be leaders in manuscript review. Recognizing the peer-review process as a major priority, we began work some months ago to recruit a deputy editor (a new post) and an increased number of associate editors and editorial board members who are dedicated to rapid review of manuscripts. Specific improvements are being decided in collaboration with these individuals, but I anticipate that this expanded group will assume greater responsibility for peer review. In conjunction with this process, we are also completing the establishment of an experienced and committed professional staff dedicated to handling peer-review paperwork at a permanent office site in Chicago (in a suite shared with the Blue Journal staff). Along with new personnel, the office's hardware and software have been markedly updated. Keen monitoring of manuscript status by this staff along with new electronic interfaces with the editor are meant to ensure shortened review times that are critical to the journal's success. We plan to use improved electronic communication to help us in this area as well as in the publication process. Accordingly, I welcomed the news that the electronic publication leaderHigh Wire Press specifically sought out the Red Journal to include in its elite group (presumably because of the trends that I noted above).

Many of you with Red Journal experience will no doubt quickly surmise that the decrease in review times will be of little help if there is an extraordinary delay in publication time (the time from manuscript acceptance to appearance). This interval has been lengthening as increased numbers of accepted manuscripts became backlogged in the publication queue. Faced with the prospect of dissatisfied customers, decisions were made to increase immediately the number of Red Journal pages (by 100 pages per year) and to borrow additional pages from the Blue Journal. These maneuvers will alleviate the short-term problem, but we would be unwise to expect this growth to correct the condition permanently. Cellular and molecular research is increasing on its own steam, and further monies toward NIH-sponsored research are likely to increase activity still further. In order to satisfy the need for timely publication, it is therefore extremely likely that the proverbial bar will be raised again. Manuscripts are likely to be more closely scrutinized for cutting-edge characteristics and for evidence of more distinctive and mechanistic information. The Red Journal will likely resort to more red ink on its submissions.

In that context, let me express an editorial philosophy toward facilitating rather than obstructing the communication of research. Some prestigious journals view themselves as having a barrier function. They ask what's wrong with a manuscript with a mind toward rejecting it first and asking additional questions later. This position is not one that I endorse. Speaking for editors and reviewers of the Red Journal, we plan to encourage, not discourage, scientists and scientific achievement. Rapid feedback is one step in that direction, but fair and constructive feedback is also critical. Our intent is to improve research submissions and to communicate these improvements to the scientific community as fast as possible.

The second area for me to serve the Journal relates to its role as an interpreter and integrator of fundamental research that affects on the pulmonary community.² I believe that this aspect of the Red Journal is what separates it from other journals that cover basic and translational science but do not concentrate their efforts on the respiratory system (or sometimes any system). These more generic journals do not have, and so cannot offer, the special expertise regarding the function of the normal and abnormal (respiratory) system without soliciting help from outsiders (like me). Accordingly, I view this integrative facet of the Red Journal as a major responsibility for my editorial tenure.

Developing this aspect of the Journal will take time, but we have already initiated some steps to promote this process. Initial plans include an increased number of state-of-the-art minireviews and perspectives from scientific leaders, as well as editorials, pro/con commentaries, miniseries on basic and translational research, supplements on scientific and therapeutic technology, and additional coverage of workshops and symposia (including ones that combine fundamental and clinical research). Current target areas include the impact of genome sequencing, cellular immunology, mouse genetics, molecular microbiology, and neurobiology, as well as the development of new treatments based on intelligent drug delivery, xenotransplantation, cell therapy, and human gene therapy. We would also like to offer a wider forum for the translational dialogue between clinical and more basic cell and molecular biology issues. In that context, we might consider commentary about articles in the Blue Journal (or at the ATS/ALA meeting) and their ramifications for cell and molecular biology. In short, we might occasionally try "sitting on the fence" in order to bridge basic with other types of research. We have requested and been granted special funds to reward submission of invited manuscripts, and in turn I encourage you to offer your input in this area.

Overall, I am extremely excited and honored to continue to work for the Red Journal. Previous leadership from Jerry Brody, Bob Senior, Mary Williams, and John McDonald as well as critical contributions from many others has molded AJRCMB into a premier site for cellular and molecular research related to the respiratory system. My aim is to sustain the previous outstanding work as the Red Journal content continues to affect our understanding of lung biology and disease. If our strategy is successful, it is possible that the Journal can dare to go where no lung journal has gone beforeinto the top tier of basic science journals. Traditionally, this aristocracy has been the select domain of more general disciplines such as cell biology, immunology, biochemistry, molecular biology, or developmental biology. The dictum has been put forward that investigators may want to present their work at subspecialized meetings but they want to publish it in more generalized journals. But that rule is itself one that has been revised recently as subspecialty societies (including our thoracic/ lung society) have been so extraordinarily successful in moving attendance away from more general meetings and toward themselves. The stampede interestingly includes not just physicians, nurses, therapists, and industrialists, but also cell biologists, microbiologists, immunologists, and other basic scientists anxious to find the largest and most attentive venue for their findings. So I now ask, can an organ-oriented research journal sponsored by a subspecialty society climb into the uppermost echelon of written communication as well? In fact, one might query whether the neurologists have already done so (with Neuron and Nature Neuroscience). In any case, the next step (up) for the thoracic community and its societal sponsors is largely up to you as contributors and reviewers. Meanwhile, my staff and I will do our best to make it easy for you.

View larger version (117K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Michael J. Holtzman, M.D.

	Footnotes