Improving Peer Review and Introducing Translational Review

Michael J. Holtzman, M.D.

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

	Article

Top

As the fourth year of my editorship concludes (and the final year begins), it may be an opportune time to survey what we have done since the summer of 1998 and to introduce what will be happening in the next year, especially a new journalistic featureTranslational Reviews.

First, let me recap the past four years of editorial tenure, starting with year one. In that year, the immediate priority was to reduce the publication lagthe time from manuscript acceptance to article appearance in print. By adding additional pages (and adding some efficiencies), the lag decreased from almost 9 to just over 4 months. Since then, as I'll describe below, it has been decreased even further to 2-3 months. In the second year, we took advantage of the extra pages to start calling for Perspectives on a regular basis, and we instituted electronic publication through HighWire Press. Over 1,500 different users soon employed this system every week (with Perspectives taking most of the hits). The system has facilitated communication to many individuals who could not access Journal contents in any other way and has made the archives freely available to all. In addition, we began the process of centralizing peer review and production operations in New York. In the third year, we reformatted the layout of articles in the Journal. This change helped eliminate any wasted space and so allowed for additional articles per issue (further decreasing the lag time). In addition, we initiated electronic online submission and review of manuscripts as we continued to restructure peer review and production operations in New York. This transition finally resulted in the installation of a very capable staff (the subject of last year's editorial). This outstanding group now includes Chris Shepherd as managing editor in charge of production and copyright/permissions, Jillian Porteus as peer review supervisor, Tom English as editorial production editor, and Fay Ling as peer review database specialist for online technical supportall in New York. In addition, Lisa Wojcik works in St. Louis to coordinate activities between the two bases and to oversee Perspectives and Reviews (more on that below). The improved operations have already had a positive effect on Journal performance. Initial review times of manuscripts have (finally) been markedly decreased. Manuscript submission rates have returned to all-time highs (nearly 400/yr). Scientific quality continues to improve as editor demands and impact factors continue to rise. The publication lag continues to fall (now at 2.6 months). And, Perspectives that coincide with publication of original investigations have kept pace at a steady rate (now averaging 3-4 per issue).

So, what is next? As you might predict, having gotten things under some kind of control (using the pseudo-power of the editorship), it's time to challenge the publication prophets again. For next year, three changes are coming: one actually started this past November and will become fully effective this monthelectronic submission and peer review of manuscripts. Two more changes will also take place with the current issuenew Associate Editors from outside the United States and a new state-of-the-art review series aimed at bench-to-bedside concepts in translational research. Let me brief you on each of these changes.

The rationale for electronic submission and peer review of manuscripts was introduced the last time that I had this editorial opportunity. In brief, I mentioned that, after a manuscript is submitted, the rate-limiting step in the publication pathway for scientific articles is the process of peer review. The automation that comes with computer oversight of this process helps to shorten the time from submission to review and back again, and, hopefully, the actual reviewing as well. The scientific community in general, and the respiratory science community in particular, has embraced a priority for shortening this process. Accordingly, the Red Journal joined with several other respiratory journals in adopting the ScholarOne system for manuscript submission and review online. In the six months that the system has been in place, the Journal has received nearly half of its manuscripts through this route. In general, the system has worked smoothly. It is considerably more efficient than waiting on the FedEx man and the fax machine. Its failings (sometimes easily traced to the humanoid link in the chain) are generally quickly rescued by a call to Ms. Porteus, Ms. Ling, or myself. However, it is a computer-based system, so it does have an element of "dysreliability" and that is likely to remain the case. As long as participants are willing to recognize that shortcoming, the system is easily measured as superior to the old one. The whole process of receiving a manuscript, assigning an editor, inviting a reviewer, and providing the manuscript for review can take place within a day. Formerly, this same set of events could take weeks.

However, the system still requires input. It won't move until an editor or a reviewer or a corresponding author provides the information that's needed. And, of course, it all happens via electronic mail, so a wrong address, or a person that doesn't respond to their e-mail, or that still doesn't do their review, will still block the publication pathway. So . . . please answer those incoming e-mails regarding peer review (or any other scientific issue) immediately. You can ignore the countless rest of them. And, when you find a review on your electronic desktop, please act as though it's your manuscript that's in the queue and treat it with the proverbial Golden Rule.

The next change for the Journal will also take effect this month, and it consists of another slight rotation of the editorial guard. As also mentioned previously, more than half of the Red Journal submissions originate from foreign lands, so we were anxious to add editors and editorial board members from non-US soil. This month, I am pleased to announce that Greg Downey (from Toronto) and Geoff Laurent (from London) will join the ranks in a continued cycle of editorial renewal. Their scientific credentials (and e-mail compliance) are outstanding, and they fit well with the other top-ranked scientists who contribute to the Journal on all levels of peer review. As the electronic system becomes more automatically transportable overseas, we certainly hope to globalize the peer review process even more completely. This represents the first small, overdue step in that direction.

The last change for this coming year will come with the introduction of a new feature of the JournalTranslational Reviews (and the discontinuation of Minireviews). This editorial invention has been cooking for several years now (waiting for available pages) and is aimed at what appears to be an appropriate niche for the Red Journal. Thus, there are basic science journals and there are clinical science journals, but perhaps the most difficult publication challenge is to make the two worlds become one future. This has always seemed to me to be the particular calling and the distinct strength of the Red Journal cast. By its very nature, the Journal is positioned to do this task extremely well. The Journal is organized and supported by a clinical medical society, yet it is driven by basic scientists with an interest in the normal and abnormal function of the respiratory system. Both groups function at the top of their field. And, the substrate of the Journalthe cutting edge of cellular and molecular biologyoffers the most powerful tools for understanding lung development and disease. Who could be in a better position to translate bench-to-bedside principles of molecular medicine?

Accordingly, we have added Translational Reviews to our well-received series of Perspectives. But, unlike Perspectives, which are generally invited by the Editor, the Reviews can be initiated by the submitting author. Simply let me know, and I will respond with some guidance as to if and when and how the manuscript can be submitted. The instructions for constructing the review, as well as a new set of Instructions to Contributors for all Journal activities, were recently posted on the Journal's website (http://ajrcmb.atsjournals.org/ or http://intnl-ajrcmb.atsjournals.org/). The first one of these Reviews appears in the current issue, and it fittingly covers a primordial yet everlasting system (involving heme oxygenase). The next one will cover practical approaches to analyzing the results of microarray experiments. I encourage the Red Journal audience to participate in this effort, and in return I promise the fastest turnaround times possible for these types of submissions.

In that regard, I want to close by stressing that Red Journal success depends most of all on its readership and their genuine interest in high-level fundamental and mechanistic research. The Journal was founded with the belief that a new age of medical research had arrived, and the subsequent 14 years certainly have supported that vision. Cell biology begat molecular biology, and these disciplines have moved onward to molecular genetics, genomics, and proteomics. In fact, it's become difficult to find a basic science department, a graduate school program, or even a medical textbook that doesn't include the "molecular" descriptor somewhere on its nameplate. The charge of the Red Journal is to capture the impact of these new research strategies in original investigations, perspectives, and reviews that improve our understanding of the respiratory system. This job can only be done with the input of the Red Journal audience. This is a membership participation activity that depends on authors, reviewers, and editors. It therefore contrasts with the new wave of commercially owned and edited journals that have proliferated over the same time period. The competitive enterprise in the publication industry has no-doubt stimulated improvements in the packaging process, and this has been good for the scientific mission. But these improvements will not change the critical ingredients of peer review. Our scientific community continually strives for new approaches and knowledge about the respiratory system and how it functions and malfunctions. In addition, there is a critical sense of consciousness for performing high-quality and helpful manuscript review. This combination of earnest submission and review is the essence of the Red Journal and allows it to capture the most innovative studies of normal and abnormal pulmonary biology. I thank each of you again for the high-grade commitment that allows for the continued accomplishment of the Journal.

	Footnotes

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