Electronics, People, and the Art of Publication

Michael J. Holtzman, M.D.

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

	Article

Top

The third year of my editorship has gone by, witnessing the best, followed by the worst, and concluding with the best of times.

In the first quarter, we enjoyed a record submission rate up some 25% and a slight increase in acceptance rate to 40%, but were still able to decrease publication lag times to 3-4 months by increasing the number of journal pages and altering the format to save space. Having solved these problems, we were able to solicit Perspectives at a desirable pace, approximately two per month, and these have remained popular (arguably the most popular Journal item) among submitters and readers. I've stressed before that this feature of the Red Journal is critical to maintaining the interface between basic science findings and bedside clinical relevance, and I still believe that this is the case.

In the second quarter, at about the time when I thought my publication process troubles were over, personnel issues indicated that we should revise the peer review operation and consolidate it with the production unit in New York City. That relatively logical and seemingly innocent decision then sent us into a downward spiral of personnel recruitment woes that took several months to resolve. The lesson to be learned, of course, is that the people who staff our Journal's infrastructure have a lot to do with the pace and efficiency of scientific publication. And while I certainly applaud and admire the contributions of our Editors, Editorial Board members, and accompanying nameless reviewers, I now also fully appreciate and cherish the role of competent supporting staff.

Fortunately, when the darkest hour had arrived and Editors were found flying to New York to fax manuscripts themselves, the economy swooned, the job market eased, and the recruitment ensued. The Journal soon came to enjoy a new peer review office manager, Helene Friedman, a new peer review coordinator, Jillian Porteus, new computer support personnel, and a new production editor, Michele Smith, to accompany our highly qualified managing editor, Chris Shepherd. This team now efficiently oversees the Journal's peer review and production processes, so it is running smoothly again. And, as this team gains experience, I would fully expect the operation to be as good as it can be, given the constraints of distance and existing mail-order technology. As the fourth quarter winds down, all is well in the Big Red Apple's Journal operation.

So, what is next? As you might predict, having maximized the humanoid components of our operation, we are aiming to update the technology further. Taking advantage of this capable staff, we will next (gradually) implement an electronic process for manuscript submission and peer review. Earlier installation of an electronic process on the publication side has been remarkably well received. Under the High Wire Press system, the Red Journal receives more than 9,000 hits and serves more than 1,500 different users each week. In addition, this vehicle serves to make back- issues part of the public domain in an efficient and open venue. And for the privileged member and subscriber, new articles will be available electronically at the time of acceptance (further eroding the publication lag issue). However, the major "delay" in publication is the art of peer review, and the major solution for decreasing the delay has been the use of electronics to oversee manuscript submission and review. Apparently, reviewers are more easily nagged by and more rapidly respond to their computers than to their fax or answering machines, telephone calls, or express mail deliveries. This enhanced responsiveness may be in part because the nagging is highly automated (i.e., programmed), so it is more efficient and unforgiving than the oral and written routes. These improvements in process are coupled with other capabilities, like having reviewer (and editor) performance accurately logged in the database and freely available for perusal. As expected, this process will shift more of the work out of the hands of staff and onto the keyboards and displays of reviewers and editors (and submitting authors), but apparently this, too, is acceptable in the interest of speed. Nowadays, submitting authors wish that their reports are handledand then publishedas quickly as possible, and the electronic process of peer review and publication allows for that to occur.

In that regard, I'll take an unusual and contrary view and issue some words of caution for this next panacea. First, be prepared for at least some difficulties during the transition from fax to keyboard. We have chosen a well traveled path in selecting the Scholar One software system, but the change will no doubt bring some accommodations. Second, the new system will require some learning by submitting authors and editorial experts and this process as well as the subsequent peer review will take more of your time than before. I emphasize here that you are getting what you asked for, and so I encourage your cooperation in this part of the educational process. And last, please do your part by responding to those incoming e-mails. The system will only succeed if the audience participates, once again reinforcing the view that peoplenot technologywill ultimately drive the process.

Along this last and most critical point, I wish to thank again the submitters, reviewers, Editors, and staff who have supported AJRCMB so vigorously and successfully. The Red Journal is now completing its lucky 13th year (maybe that was the problem?) and it has gradually become a valuable jewel in the ATS crown. This achievement is entirely fitting, because the ATS, enjoying its own success as a predominantly clinical medicine society, was willing and able to develop and support a publication that recognizes the importance of basic cellular and molecular research in order to understand and fix respiratory disease. In fact, now over 13 years later, the name of the Journal is again becoming old-fashioned. The original focus, cell and molecular biology, has quite obviously broadened to include new approaches in gene regulation and expression and the use of modern genetics in whole animals and humans in respiratory research. The Journal is also still labeled as "American," and that may continue to have some brand-name value, but in reality over half of the current contributors are from outside the United States. Similarly, an increasing number of non-U.S. scientists are assuming leadership positions on the Editorial Board and are now being recruited to be Associate Editors (applications are welcome). Even its identity as a Journal might be re-evaluated soon, if it exists mainly as an electronic vehicle. Having just paid handsomely for rights to the current journal title, it is probably not the most opportune time to politic for a name change. However, somewhere, someday, somebody might suggest something simple like Respiratory Science, and get away with it.

But, no doubt, the most significant reason the Red Journal has been successful comes back again to its audience and its willingness to perform and to read about high science. No amount of manipulation in the peer review or production process will change the critical nature of this scientific component of the Journal. Fortunately, part of the pulmonary phenotype has been to continually strive for new approaches and knowledge about the respiratory system and how it functions and malfunctions. This process is really the essence of the Red Journalto capture the newest and most innovative studies of normal and abnormal respiratory biology. The lung community has embraced new medical research technology and taken advantage of it whenever possible and has insisted that their Journal demand the highest quality from these resources. Once again, I encourage each of you to contribute and to continue the high level of support and commitment that allow for the success of the Journal, and we will return the support by using the highest level of info-technology (and keeping staff who know how to use it).

	Footnotes

Address correspondence to: M. J. Holtzman, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8052, 660 South Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63110. E-mail: holtzmanm{at}msnotes.wustl.edu