© 2008 American Thoracic Society DOI: 10.1165/rcmb.2008-0008ED
Lung Biology Research 2008: Revolution in the Midst of a Gathering Storm
Jack D. Myers Professor AJRCMB, state of the art 2000: "We added agent X to cell line Y and observed an increase in cytokines A, B, and C. Hence, X is an important mediator of disease Z." AJRCMB, state of the art 2008: "Expression profiling of cells from patients with disease Y versus control identified X as being highly induced (which was confirmed by RT/PCR and protein assays). Application of X-deficient mice to a model of disease Z protected mice from development of Z." These somewhat theoretical examples demonstrate the dramatic progress we have made in lung (patho)biology research over the past 5 to 10 years. Lung biologists as a group have gone from performing largely descriptive studies to understanding detailed molecular mechanisms in cells and confirming their findings in animal models. The next steps are to take these findings "from bench to bedside" by demonstrating the relevance of these molecular mechanisms to human disease and developing therapies that improve patient care. Hopefully, many of these studies will be published in future issues of the ATS journal American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (AJRCCM). Although the lung remains a complex and challenging organ to study, lung biologists no longer take a back seat to those of any other discipline. While this Journal does not take credit for the emergence of lung biology, we are proud to have been a part of this transformation. Our Deputy and Associate Editors, themselves top-notch scientists, and our pool of outstanding reviewers, have tried to provide constructive yet stringent reviews designed to educate our authors and elevate their science. The goal of our editorial team has been simple: demand the best from our authors; keep the review process fair, simple, and productive; and publish the best science. The production of the Journal involves many dedicated people. Nothing would happen without our dedicated and talented staff at the ATS office led by Christina Shepherd and her two managers, Karin Beehler and Eric Gumpert. The ATS Board has been so supportive and in sync with the Journal that the Publications Policy Committee (PPC) has not needed to exercise its role as a buffer to maintain the scientific freedom of the Editor while fulfilling the mission of the ATS. This is not to say that we have not benefited greatly from the guidance of the PPC, most ably led by Jeff Glassroth and now John Balmes. The PPC and ATS Editors have taken on many of the important issues that face journals today, including public access, the future of the paper journal, forensic testing of images, and many others. The review process is only as good as the reviewers, who take time out of their busy schedules to provide unbiased (and uncompensated) critiques. We are blessed with a pool of knowledgeable and insightful reviewers who have allowed us to meet the challenge. Of note, they have also met our aggressive timelines. To date in 2008, it has taken on average 23 days from entry into our system to first decision, less than half the time it took five years ago. Throughout the review process we rely heavily on our Editorial Board, and have expanded it to reflect our society, readership, and authorship. Currently, our board is composed of 25% female and 20% international members. While these statistics are still low, they are headed in the right direction. Submissions to the Journal have steadily increased from about 400/year five years ago to more than 475/year for the past three years. This is a good sign for the health of science, and we take it as a confirmation that the Journal plays a necessary role in pulmonary science. This success leads to additional challenges, such as maintaining a reasonable lag-time from acceptance to publication without turning away worthy manuscripts within the confines of our fixed page limits. Our creative staff has made remarkable progress reformatting the Journal so that we now save one full page per article without sacrificing the high-quality appearance. To publish as many original articles as possible, we have had to sacrifice some of our plans to expand the "front end" of the Journal. It is there that we had hoped to provide even more cutting-edge Editorials and Translational Reviews on topics of interest to our readers. Despite these modifications, we still only accept approximately 30% of manuscripts submitted. Indeed, this does seem rather selective for a journal with an impact factor (IF) of 4.608, which brings us to a discussion of the impact factor—the editors' report card and bane of their existence. The impact factor is calculated as follows: IF for 2007 = citations in the year 2007 to articles from 2005 and 2006, divided by the total number of manuscripts published in 2005 and 2006. This simple metric, developed as a librarian's tool, has taken on a life of its own. It is now used (and abused) not only to rate journals but to quantify the value of investigators and, in some cases, departments. While the flaws are obvious, the bottom line is that the desire to objectively grade science and scientists is here to stay and therefore cannot be ignored. To make things more interesting for the editor, this number can be easily gamed. In such antics we have refused to participate. Instead, we have chosen to use our editorial stint to answer the following question: How much can the IF improve by focusing only on publishing the best science? The answer, which is starting to emerge, is that the IF will improve significantly but not dramatically. Our IF went from a baseline of approximately 4.0 previously to our Journal's two best performances ever: 4.593 in 2006 and, as previously stated, 4.608 in 2007. These numbers place us at the top of purely basic lung journals, and move us closer to competing general basic science journals, many of which have witnessed decreasing IFs. Perhaps if we had played the game (AJRCMB has a woeful 5% self-citation rate compared with 15–40% for most other lung journals), we would have surpassed them by now. We are proud that our sister journal, AJRCCM, is also more robust than ever with a 2007 IF of 9.074, leading all pulmonary journals. We have a very healthy relationship with AJRCCM Editor Edward Abraham, as well as with PATS Editor Alan R. Leff, both great editors and people. That said, we have natural areas of overlap with AJRCCM, including animal models of disease and genetics. Indeed, in this time of multidisciplinary research, the lines between the basic science and clinical research should be murky. Our challenge is to convince authors to send many of their best articles to the AJRCMB, where they will likely face a more stringent review for half the impact factor of AJRCCM. In the long run, aid from our review process should result in a stronger manuscript, giving them ever-lasting satisfaction. Moreover, study sections (littered with our AEs and board members) have the highest regard for our Journal. And isn't that all that matters in the scientist's cycle of life: publish-grant-publish-grant? Yet, lest we are to become a second-class journal or worse yet, be folded into the AJRCCM, we must achieve a higher impact factor without sacrificing our integrity. The challenges of our little Journal pale in comparison to the larger threat lurking for biomedical research in general. Ironically, we are in the midst of revolutions in many scientific disciplines that should allow us to understand disease processes, develop effective therapy, and improve patient care. However, the NIH budget is flat (and decreasing in real dollars), the worldwide economy is slowing, and there is a pervasive shortsighted (but not entirely inaccurate) view that research increases the cost of healthcare. As a scientific community, we must continue to educate citizens and politicians about the importance of our mission. As I turn the editorship over to Ken Adler in these uncertain times, I am more confident than ever that Ken's scientific prowess, creativity and empathy—balanced with a touch of competitive toughness—will allow our Journal to rise and meet the many challenges of the day. I applied for this position to serve the ATS and to carry on the legacy established by my mentor, Robert Senior, and the other founding Editors, Jerry Brody and Mary Williams. I got much more than I bargained for. The many interactions with our "team" and the whole scientific community have been extremely rewarding and uplifting. For example, in the few instances where an author felt compelled to write me following rejection of a manuscript, the purpose of those letters has been almost uniformly to thank us for our fair review and suggestions. It is this attitude that will continue to elevate pulmonary science, thereby improving our understanding of the lung and our patients' quality of life.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
