FROM THE EDITOR
Editorial Board Meeting of The American Journal of CardiologyMarch 1990 heannual editorial board meetingof The American Journal of Cardiology (AJC) this year washeld in New Orleans, Louisiana, on March 20 at the time of the Annual Scientific Sessionsof the American College of Cardiology. The major purposesof the meeting were to say “thanks” to the 148 board membersfor their enormoushelp during the previousyear, to pay particular tribute to those board members reviewing the most manuscriptsduring 1989,to summarizeAJC publication figures during 1989, and to receive input from board members through their questions and comments. (1) Introduction of new board members: Fifteen physicians(Table I) wereaddedto the board beginning January 1990,and they were introduced. New board members are selectedentirely on their record as nonboard reviewers for the AJC. It is easyto selectthe new members.The card files of the 1,300or so nonboard AJC reviewersare reviewedand the 15 or 20 with the bestreviewing records are selected.Many other nonboard reviewersare deserving of board status, but all obviously cannot be chosen.It is hopedthat the most deserving,however,will eventually becomeboard members. The task of eliminating about 10%of the board members each year is getting progressivelymore difficult becausemost board membersdo a superbjob. The card file of each board member is reviewed after the end of the
T
TABLE
(2) Numbers of manuscripts received for review by each AJC board member in 1989: A total of
1,740manuscriptswere submitted to the AJC in 1989,a 13%increase comparedto the 1,525 submitted in 1988.The numbers and types of manuscriptssent (95% actually reviewed)to the 4 types of specialistson the board are summarizedin Table II. The 148 board memberswere sent 812 manuscripts to review, an average of 5.5 per member: 751 (95%) were reviewedon time (3 weeksfrom the mailing date to receiving date from the Bethesda,Maryland, editorial office); 22 manuscripts (3%) were not reviewed within this time period, and 39 manuscripts (5%) were returned without review. As shown in Table II, the 112 adult cardiologists reviewed the most manuscripts (a mean of 6.0), and the 13 cardiac surgeonsreviewed the least (a mean of 2.1). The numbers of manuscriptsactually reviewed by the board membersare summarizedin Figure 1. (3) AJC board members reviewing the most manuscripts in 1989:The 14 top reviewersin 1989are listed in
I New AJC Board Members Beginning in January
1990
Table III. Drs. Joel Morganroth and David Spodickwere tops. Tables IV to VI list board membersreviewing 9, 8 and 7 manuscripts, respectively, during 1989. (4) Numbers of pages and articles and types of arti-
1. David G. Benditt 2. William E. Boden 3. Kanu Chatterjee 4. Gregory J. Dehmer 5. James S. Forrester 6. Gary S. Francis 7. Jerome L. Fleg 8. W. Bruce Fye 9. Sidney Goldstein 10. David R. Holmes, Jr. 11. Richard E. Kerber 12. Eric L. Michelson 13. Natesa Pandian 14. Nanette K. Wenger 15. Salim Yusuf
TABLE
calendaryear; thosememberswith the largest numbers of reviews returned late or manuscripts returned without review are deleted. Thus, each AJC board member determineshis or her longevity on the AJC editorial board.
cles published in the AJC in 1989 and comparison to Circulation and The Journal of the American College of
Cardiology (JACC): These numbers are summarized in Table VII. The AJC published 2,922 pagesin 1988.Fewer pagesbut more articles were published in the AJC in 1989than in either Circulation or JACC. The AJC published 699 articles in 1989,a 9%increasecomparedto the 636 published in 1988. The shorter average length of articles in the AJC (4.15 pages)than in Circulation (8.55 pages) or JACC (6.60 pages) and the slightly greater
II Numbers and Types of Manuscripts Sent to AJC Board Members in 1989 According to Specialty of Board Member No. on
Specialty
Board
No. MSS Sent (No./Reviewer)
No. LR
No. BR
No. CR
No. (%) Reviews on Time
No. (%) Reviews Late
No. (%) MSS Returned Without Review
Adult cardiologist Pediatric cardiologist Cardiac surgeon Radiologist or pathologist Total
112 19 13 4
676 93 27 16
650 86 23 16
23 6 1 0
3 1 1 0
624 89 24 14
20 (3%) l(l%) 1(4%) 0
32 (5%) 3 (3%) 2 (7%) 2(12%)
148
812 (5.5)
775 (95%)
30
5
751(92%)
22 (3%)
39 (5%)
LR = long report;
MSS = manuscripts.
BR = brief report; CR = case report;
1162
(6.0) (4.9) (2.1) (4.0)
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY VOLUME 65
(92%) (96%) (89%) (88%)
content per pageof articles in the AJC madethis possible. Table VII also displays other differences among these 3 USA cardiology journals. No experimental articles (those involving nonhuman animals) were published in the AJC (except for a few in the Brief Reports section) whereas59 (11%of articles) werepublished in JACC and 98 (26% of articles) in Circulation. A unique feature of the AJC is the large number of Brief Reports published (187 [27% of articles]) whereas neither of the other 2 journals publish brief reports. Over a third of the Brief Reports published were originally submitted as fulllength manuscripts.The AJC published 68 CaseReports (10% of articles) in 1989;all had 1 to 3 casedescriptions. Relatively few editorials were published in the AJC in 1989 (32 [4.5%of articles]) comparedto Circulation (61 [16%ofarticles])andJACC(163 [31%ofarticles]).The percentagesof full-length articles on the various types of heart diseasesvaried slightly among the 3 journals. The AJC published more on systemic hypertension than did the other 2 journals combined (26 [4%] vs 6 [l%] vs 8 [2%]), and fewer articles on congenital heart diseasethan JACC (22 vs 38) but more than Circulation (6 articles). All articles published in either JACC or Circulation were categorized as if they had been submitted to the AJC. (5) Symposia published in the AJC in 1989: The AJC published 20 symposiain 1989, one more than in 1988, and they are listed in Table VIII along with their guest ’ editors and sponsors.A total of 232 articles occupying 1,240 pageswere published in the 20 symposia. (6) Developments affecting the AJC since the last editorial board meeting (March 1989): In 1989,the reg-
ular issuesof the AJC appeared every 2 weeks except during the months of August and Decemberwhen they appearedonly once. In 1990, the regular issueswill appear twice a month for all 12 months, rather than for just 10 months. The section of the journal previously called Letters was changed in January 1990 to Readers’ Comments. Nearly all published “letters” are responsesto articles published in the AJC and the name changeis intended to reflect this fact. Additionally, letters (to the editor) are actually intended to be commentsto the readersso that “letters” is not an accurate description. Finally, authors of “letters” to be published tend to write them on their own stationery, single spacedand without titles, and the name change may help in having Readers’ Comments preparedin a form similar to that of other manuscripts.It is nearly impossibleto edit a single spaced“letter” or any other single-spacedmanuscript. (7) Evaluation of the usefulness of the AJC: Determining the usefulnessof a publication is more difficult than counting the numbers of pagesor types of articles published. Of course,the numbers of paid subscribersis an important index. The number of paid subscribersof the AJC is approximately 22,000. In addition to this number the publisher sendsout several thousand copies on a rotational basis to potential new subscribers. Another possible means of evaluating the usefulness of a journal is to examine the number of its articles reviewed in annual or monthly review booksor journals. A monthly controlled circulation journal called Cardiolo-
TABLE III Top 14 AIC Reviewers in 1989 and Numbers of Manuscripts Reviewed No. Revlewed
No. MSS
0"
Name
Reviewed
LR
BR
CR
Time
1. Joel Morganroth 1. David H. Spodick 3. Abdulmassih S. lskandnan 4. Richard 0. Cannon, Ill 4. Robert L. Feldman 4. Lowell W. Perry 4. Eric J. Top01 8. Bernard R. Chaitman 8. Pamela S. Douglas 8. Julius M. Gardin 8. Leonard N. Horowitz 8. Jeffrey M. lsner 8. Spencer B. King, Ill 8. Robert A. Kloner
13 13 12
13 12
0 1
0 0
13 13
11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11 10 9 9 10 9 10
10
9
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 11 10 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Abbrevmtions
as I” Table II
27 26 25 24 23 21 20 19 2 18 i 17 i 16 2 2 15 : 14 2 13 5 12 2 11 i 10 29 8
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NUMBERS OF MANUSCRIPTS REVIEWED
flGURE 1. Nmnber of mammripts members in lBB9.
reviewed
by AJC board
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY MAY 1, 1990
1163
TABLE
IV Reviewers of Nine Manuscripts for the AJC in
Name
No. MSS Reviewed
LR
BR
No. Reviewed on CR Time
1. Peter F. Cohn 2. Robert F. DeEusk 3. Frank A. Finnerty. Jr. 4. Kenneth M. Kent 5. Arthur J. Moss 6. Carl J. Pepine 7. Nathaniel Reichek
9 9 9 9 9 9 9
9 9 8 9 8 9 9
0 0 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Abbrewations
9 8 9 8 9 9 9
as I” Table Il.
TABLE V Reviewers of Eight Manuscripts for the AJC in 1989
Name
No. MSS Reviewed
LR
BR
CR
No. Reviewed on Time
1. Jeffrey Anderson 2. George A. Belier 3. Michael H. Crawford 4. Pablo Denes 5. William H. Gaaxh 6. Eugene R. Passamani 7. Nelson B. Schiller
8 8 8 8 8 8 8
7 8 8 8 8 8 6
1 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 8 7 7 8 8 8
Abbreviations
as m Table II.
gy Board Review and edited by Dr. Peter F. Cohn contains 5 to 12 articles monthly and each is a condensed version of an article originally published in a peer-reviewed journal. Table IX summarizesthe journals containing the original articles from which the condensed articles were derived in 1989.As in 1986,1987 and 1988, the AJC was the source of the most articles. (8) Requestfor more high quality editorials: I think that it would be useful to increasethe number of editorials and editorial reviewspublished in the AJC. The editorial’s length should be determined by the complexity of the messagedelivered. One-point editorials should be short, and multiple-point ones longer. (9) Reminder to authors to supply several namesof nonlocal, nonbiasedreviewersfor their manuscripts:Editors have no monopoly on choosingthe best reviewersof manuscripts. No one should be more knowledgeableof expertsin the subjectof a manuscript than the authors of the manuscript. Thus, I urge authors to supply namespreferably 5 and when they are nonboard memberstheir addressesalso-of nonbiased,nonlocal potential reviewers of their manuscripts. It is necessaryfor an author to supply several names becausealmost certainly some of the potential reviewerswill already havea manuscript for review and a secondmanuscript is not sent to a reviewer who already possesses one, unlessthe secondmanuscript is a brief report or a casereport. Presently, in only about 20% of manuscripts submitted have authors provided names of potential reviewers.After studying for several years reviews by reviewers suggestedby authors, I am impressedthat in general they are of higher quality than 1164
TABLE VI Reviewers of Seven Manuscripts for the AX in
1989
1989
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY VOLUME 65
No. Reviewed
Name
No. MSS Reviewed
LR
BR
CR Time
1. Robert 0. Bonow 2. George A. Diamond 3. Myrvin H. Ellestad 4. Carl V. Leier 5. Joseph Lindsay, Jr. 6. Fred Morady 7. Robert J. Myerburg 8. Bertram Pitt 9. Philip J. Podrid 10. Melvin M. Scheinman 11. Barry L. Zaret 12. Warren G. Guntheroth 13. Howard P. Gutgesell 14. Grace S. Wolff
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
7 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 6
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Abbrwations
on
6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
as in Table Il.
those selectedby the AJC’s editor or associateeditors, and that the author-chosenreviewersare not more favorable to a manuscript than are editor-selectedreviewers. Indeed, many manuscripts have been reviewed by 1 author-selectedreviewer and by 1 editor-selectedreviewer and the author-selectedreviewer recommendedrejection and the editor-selected reviewer recommended acceptance of the manuscript. (10) Effectivenessofthepolicy of blind reviewsof all manuscripts: During the past 8 years authors requesting a blind review of their manuscripts have had their wishes honored.The blind review has beenaccomplishedby the authors providing a separate title page containing the manuscript’s title without the namesof authors or their institution. The title page containing the authors’ and institution’s names of course was not submitted to the reviewer. During thesepast 7 years this author-requested optional blind review processhas been used relatively infrequently (probably about 10% of submitted manuscripts) and then almost entirely by authors from less well-known medical centers. On September 1, 1989, a new policy wasinstituted, and that was to sendall manuscripts for blind review, and that policy has beenin effect to the present. I have receivedonly 1 letter from a board member commenting on the blind review policy for all manuscripts and 2 paragraphs from that letter are the following: “This is the first manuscript that I havereceived where I was askedto do a blinded review. I would like to expressmy personalobjection at being asked to do this. On the one hand a blinded review could be construed to insure fairness in the review process.On the other hand, a number of groups do poor quality work which is written up quite nicely and which time after time fails to stand the test of time and is refuted by mostother reputable groups. If I receive a manuscript with an enthusiastic endorsement of some new antiarrhythmic drug or device,I would place much more emphasison that report if it came from a laboratory which had over
rABLE VII
Number
of Pages and Types
of Articles
Published
in the Regular
Issues of The American Journal of Cardiology, Journal
)f the American College of Cardiology and Circulation in 1989 Journal of the American College of Cardrology
American Journal of Cardiology No. of pages For articles (mean/month) [pages/article] For letters (number) [number with replies] For staff, editorial board For contents in brief For contents with abstracts For boxed abstracts (for card files) For information for authors For volume indexes For miscellaneous No. of articles (mean/month) Coronary artery disease Arrhythmias and conduction defects Systemic hypertension Congestive heart failure Valvular heart disease Cardiomyopathy Congenital heart disease Methods Experimental studies Historical studies Miscellaneous Brief reports Case reports Editorials and editorral reviews From the editor
3,818 3,471 (289) [6.60] 25(25)[15] 28 28 122 0 28 63 53+ 526 (44) 100(19.0%) 52 (9.9%) 6(1.1%) 11(2.1%) 32(6.1%) 22 (4.2%) 38 (7.2%) 14(2.7%) 59(11.2%) 4 (0.8%) 15 (2.9%) 0 9(1.7%) 163 (31.0%) 0
3,356 2.903 (242) [4.15]
19(36) VI 22 77 230 0 24 75 11* 699 (58) 172 (24.6%) 70 (10.0%) 26 (3.7%) 19 (2.7%) 22(3.1%) 9(1.3%) 22(3.1%) 14 (2.0%) 0 3 (0.4%) 55 (7.9%) 187 (26.8%) 68 (9.7%) 22 (3.1%) 10(1.4%)
* Includes 42 abstracts of the cardiology section of a pedlatrac society. 1 Includes Items related to The American College of Cardiology. t For American Heart Assoaatlon News, Meetings Calendar, list of names of nonboard lesearch, Hypertension, Arterlosckrosis and Japan Heart Journal.
the years presentedwell-balanced pictures in all of their publications. On the other hand, my review would be influenced somewhat if it came from a laboratory that was always enthusiastic about every single compound or device to come along and which had close relationships with industry that might result in this ongoing string of glowing reports of new therapies. “While there may be certain inherent biasesin my review in this regard, I try to be as objective as possibleabout eachindividual review and the above factors only play a minor role in my final decision. In general, I think eachmanuscript should standon its own merit. However, if I am on the fence about whether or not a manuscript should be acceptedor rejected,knowledgeof the quality of work from the laboratory from which it is submitted would definitely influence my decision one way or the other. Finally, in thesedays where there is somuch potential for conflict of interest due to various financial and other relationships between authors and the subjects about which they are publishing, knowledge of the individual investigators is extremely important. Not that this should in any way influence whether the manuscript is published, but it would permit the reviewer to point out potential conflicts of interest to the editor and be certain that the authors have disclosed them to the editor.” The concept of reviewing all submitted manuscripts blindly was discussedby severalboard members.Several
revewers
Circulation
of manuscripts
submltted
to Clrculatlon
3,824 3,274 (273) [8.55]
1806) El 24 39 96 117 24 51 181’ 383 (32) 76 (19.8%) 25 (6.5%) 8(2.1%) 15 (3.9%) 17 (4.4%) 11 (2.9%) 6(1.6%) 6(1.6%) 98 (25.6%) 0 59 (15.4%) 0 0 61 (15.9%) 1(0.3%)
and table of contents
of Crculabon
board memberscommentedthat they were able to identify the authors and their institutions readily from the authors’ referencesto their own institutions in the manuscripts, or from the mention of the name of their institution in the text of the manuscript. Authors’ names frequently are left on the backsof figures and tables. Thus, although the manuscript-reviewprocessis intended to be blinded, authors of the manuscripts actually often prevent a blind review process.After considerablediscussion a vote was taken. It appearedthat about one-half of the editorial board memberspresentfavored the blind review policy for all manuscripts, and that the other one-half were against it. Discussedbriefly were mechanismsby which data could be obtained comparing reviewer comments and recommendations of the same manuscript reviewed blindly by one reviewer and in a nonblinded fashion by the other reviewer. The problem here, of course,is that the samereviewer cannot review the samemanuscript in both a blinded and in a nonblinded fashion. It would be easy,however,to sendthe samemanuscript for a blinded review to onereviewer and for a nonblinded review to the other reviewer and simply add up the recommendations (definitely accept, probably accept, definitely reject, probably reject) for a large number of manuscripts of those reviewed blindly comparedto those reviewed nonblindly. This policy will be instituted on April 1, 1990,for at least several months. Questionson other subjectsfrom board membersfollowed: THE AMERICAN
JOURNAL
OF CARDIOLOGY
MAY 1, 1990
1165
VIII Symposia Published in the AK in 1989
TABLE
Interval 1989 Date of Publication
Guest Editor(s)
Sponsor
Edmund l-l. Sonnenblick Norman K. Hollenberg
Winthrop Lederle
11 8
53 41
8 9
Antoon Amery Hugo Van Aken William W. Parmley Chuichi Kawai Dirk L. Brutsaert John Ross, Jr. Joseph C. Greenfield Jr. David P. Lauler Thomas C. Cesario
ByK Gulden
13
50
10
Merck, Sharp & Dohme Otsuka
8 22
37 120
16 20
GD Searle Warner-Lambert
4 8 13
42 46 59
-
William H. Frishman J. David Wallin AlbertoZanchetti Stanley H. Taylor Kazuzo Kato Jeffrey L. Anderson
Key
16
78
11
Rhone Poulenc Sante and Chugai Beecham
15
85
8
8
42
6
William C. Roberts Thomas D. Giles
DuPont Musser-Burch Society, Department of Medicine Tulane University ByK Gulden Lomberg GmbH Winthrop
9
11
43 60
8
39
9
11
63
6
Pfizer Merrell Dow Syntex Pfizer
12 6 8 17
69 38 41 137
? 6 26 24
Roussel and Chugai
24
97
10
January3 January 17
C
February2
Phosphodiesterase inhibitors Systemic hypertension (triamterene/hydrochlorothiazide) Acute hypertension (urapidil)
D E
February 21 March7
Congestive Myocardial
F G H
October 1 April 18 May2
I
June5
Technologic equipment Magnesium deficiency (MgCI) Cardiovascular disease in the elderly Systemic hypertension (labetalol)
J
June 20
A
July5
B C
July 18 August 2
heart failure (enalapril) ischemia
Angina pectoris and congestive heart failure (nicorandil) Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (Eminase) [APSACI Myocardial infarction George E. Burch Festschrift
Gary E. Sander D
August 15
E
September
F G H I
September 19 October3 October 17 November 7
Nifedipine Lipids Nicardipine Amiodipine
J
December 5
Arrhythmia
Pieter A. van Zwieten
Urapidil Cardiovascular
imaging
treatment
Carl L. Tommaso Gerald L. Wolf William H. Frishman John T. Gwynne William W. Parmley Arnold Schwartz Pieter A. van Zwieten A. John Camm Yoshio Watanabe Kazuo Yamada
232
20
(1) How often is a third review requested on a manuscript that has received 1 accept recommendation and I reject recommendation.7 Probably 20% of the time. If I feel comfortable with the subject of the manuscript, I make a decision after 2 reviews despitethe oppositerecommendationsby the 2 reviewers.Often also a reviewer might recommendrejection of a manuscript but the reviewers’ comments and criticisms are such that the recommendation could just as easily have beenaccept.Also, when 1 reviewer is extremely favorable toward a manuscript, the extremely positive review often neutralizesthe negative review. The status of the 2 reviewers also is helpful. When 1 reviewer is a seniorwell-respectedinvestigator and the other reviewer is a young beginning investigator, thesefactors are taken into consideration.Younger reviewersin general tend to be more critical I believe than the older reviewers.The 2 views often provide a nice balance.Thus, in general,I try not to seeka third review, becauseit means that the review processstarts all over again and the decisionon disposition of the manuscript is delayed. When a third review is requested I send the reviews of the first 2 reviewers to the third reviewer so
1166
(months) Symposium to Publication
Subject of Symposium
A B
5
Number Articles
Number Pagesfor Articles
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY VOLUME 65
1,240
7 14
7 -
Mean 12
that he or she . better _ understands _-. the __ issueof the particular manuscript at hand. Numerical data on the frequency of a third review will be recordedbeginning April 1,199O. Recently, in a few manuscripts receiving strongly opposing recommendations (definitely accept from 1 re viewer and definitely reject from the other reviewer), I havereturned the manuscript immediately to the reviewer (before returning it to the authors) who recommended definitely reject with the review of the reviewer who had recommendeddefinitely accept requesting that the reviewer point out to me the incorrect judgments of the favorable reviewer.This processhas not beencarried out yet in sufficient numbers of manuscripts to form a judgment on this process. (2) Should one reviewer of a manuscript be provided with the name of the other reviewer of the same manuscript? At present,each reviewer of a manuscript sent to the AJC is provided the review of the other reviewer.The other reviewer’sname,however,is camouflagedsothat it is rarely discernible.The consensuswasthat the namesof the 2 reviewers should not be revealed to each other. Thus, the present system of name concealmentwill re-
main. The exception,asmentionedearlier, is when a third review is sought and then the namesof the first 2 reviewers are disclosedto the third reviewer. (3) Are any manuscripts accepted without review?
The answer dependson whether or not the editor is considered a reviewer. If the editor is considereda reviewer, the answeris no. If the editor is not considereda reviewer, the answer is yes. Although most are sent for outside review, someeditorials that are acceptedare not sent out for review. An occasional case report or brief report is acceptedafter review by the editor only. Many casereports are declinedwithout outsidereview. Nearly all Brief Reports and all long reports are sent to 2 reviewers.An occasionalmanuscript is returned from 1 reviewer without review, and if the review by the other reviewer appears to be a particularly good one, a decision on that manuscript is made without seeking a secondreview. (4) If a manuscript is declined by another journal, can the reviews provided by that journal be submitted with the manuscript if it is then submitted to the AJC?
TABLE
IX Sources
of Articles
in Cardiology
Board Review in
1989 Journal
No. (%)
American Journal of Cardiology Journal of the American College of Cardiology American Heart Journal Circulation American Journal of Medlclne Archwes of Internal Medrcine Annals of Internal Medrcrne New England Journal of Medrcrne Bnttsh Heart Journal Total
23 (27.1) 18(21.1) 13(15.3) 13 (15.3) 6(7.1) 5 (5.9) 3 (3.5) 3 (3.5) l(l.2) 85(100)
This proceduremight allow the AJC editor to make a rapid acceptor reject decisionon the manuscript, or it might allow him to send the manuscript for reexamination to only 1 reviewer rather than 2. . . . “I would welcomea thorough evaluation of this time-saving processand I will do my best not to be offendedbecausethe manuscript had not beensent initially to the AJC. I also urge other editors of cardiovascular journals to adopt the same procedure, becauseall 4 major USA cardiovascularjournals essentiallyusethe samepool of reviewers.The concept needsfull testing so that the energiesfor reviewing will be conservedand those energiesexpended will be utilized more effectively and efficiently.” This processhas beenin effect now for 5 years, and I believethat it hasbeenuseful. Occasionally,authors who submit their manuscript with previous reviews do not send the manuscript as it appeared when it had been initially submitted. We then call the authors and request that they sendthe “unrevised” manuscript, and we learn that the authors made no revisions of their manuscript before it was sent to the AJC despite 2 or more reviews from the journal to which it had been submitted earlier. When I learn that authors made no effort to revise or respondto the reviewsreceivedfrom the journal to which it had been submitted previously, I usually return the manuscript to the authors. Nearly all of our manuscripts can be improved when we take into consideration the views of reviewers, and not to do so is an insult to the review processand a sign of a lack of desirefor excellence on the part of authors. I believe that we have received some first-class manuscripts by this procedure.
Yes. This policy was instituted in January 1985 and 3 paragraphs from that piece were as follows’: “An unfortunate principle of the peer-review process is that the best manuscripts receive the fewest reviews and the worst manuscripts receive the most reviews.The best manuscripts are usually acceptedby the first journal to which they are sent. Therefore, they receive 1 to 3 reviews,dependingon the policy of the particular journal; the manuscript usually is revised to varying degrees,and then accepted.The processfor the less-than-superbor the inferior manuscript is not sorapid. The first journal to which the manuscript is sent may acquire 2 reviews for it, and when neither reviewer recommendsacceptanceand the editor agrees,the manuscript with the reviewsis returned to the submitting author. Then the latter usually submits the manuscript to another journal, ideally after having revised the manuscript as suggestedby the reviewers from the first submission.The editor of the journal receiving the previously rejected manuscript then sendsit to 2 more reviewers-on occasion,to one who happenedto have reviewedthe manuscript for the first journal. These reviewersin turn often also provide unfavorable recommendationsfor the manuscript for the first journal. The editor then returns the rejected manuscript to the authors, who in turn sendit to anotherjournal with or without additional (5) How often do authors provide suggestions for reviewers of their submitted manuscripts? Although we revisions. The duplication processcontinues. have not kept records, I estimate that about 20% of au“To prevent this depletion of reviewers’energies and also to prevent further publication delay, I sugthors provide namesof potential reviewers.I would like to seethis percent over 75%. I am convinced that scholarly gest to authors who submit a manuscript rejected by another journal to the AJC that the authors authors can identify reviewersof their manuscriptsbetter than can editors. I do not know how to substantiate this enclosecopiesof all reviewsfrom the previousjournal, a copy of the original manuscript, 3 copiesof view. the revised manuscript, and a responseto all items (6) Dr. William Ganz questioned the policy of the lack of experimental (nonhuman) type articles in the raised by all reviewersfrom the previousjournal. In other words, the responseto the reviews from the AJC, suggesting that this policy might diminish the prestige of the AJC, particularly in the eyes of young previousjournal should be identical to the response investigators. This issueis an important one.The decision given reviews had they been sent from the AJC.
THE AMERICAN
JOURNAL
OF CARDIOLOGY
MAY 1, 1990
i
167
to eliminate publication of experimental studies (except in the Brief Report,section of the journal) was made in 1986,at the time when the number of pagespublished in the journal was dramatically reduced. The reduction actually was short-lived (1 year) due to a changein ownership, but subsequently the numbers of manuscripts receivedhasincreasedfar in excessof the numbersof pages available. (In 1989 we received 1,740 manuscripts; in 1982 the number was 1,100, and in 1982 we published 300 more pages than in 1989.) Because experimental manuscriptsare usually the longestof any submitted, it is simply not possible to keep the lag time (interval from acceptanceof.a manuscript to its publication) short, and accept experimental manuscripts. I am convinced that our having the shortest lag time of any peer-reviewed cardiology journal in the world (4 months) encourages authors to send us manuscripts that might otherwise be sent to another journal. We publish manuscripts in a shorter time period than are abstracts published at the annual scientific sessionsof either The American Heart Association or The Coliege of Cardiology. Additionally, severalreadershipsurveyshave indicated that the experimental articles are usually the least read portions of the journal. And our subscribersare paid onesindependentof
1 iti8
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY VOLUME 65
any society. Until the number of pagespublished in the AJC increasessubstantially I believe it best for the journal to remain a purely clinical one. (9) How many paid subscribers to the AJC are in non-USA countries? The publisher indicated that this
number was approximately 4,000. The non-USA pool of potential subscribers,of course,is a large one,and mechanisms to increase this number are presently being discussed. The board memberswere thanked for coming and the meeting was adjourned to a reception provided by the publisher. The editor welcomescommentsfrom readers on any item(s) (or others) discussedherein.
William Clifford
Roberts, MD Editor in Chief
1. Rolwts
WC.
A suggestion
Cardiol 1985:55:247.
to lighten
the load of manuscript
reviewing.
Am
J
Editorial Board Meeting of The American Journal of CardiologyMarch 1990 heannual editorial board meetingof The American Journal of Cardiology (AJC) this year washeld in New Orleans, Louisiana, on March 20 at the time of the Annual Scientific Sessionsof the American College of Cardiology. The major purposesof the meeting were to say “thanks” to the 148 board membersfor their enormoushelp during the previousyear, to pay particular tribute to those board members reviewing the most manuscriptsduring 1989,to summarizeAJC publication figures during 1989, and to receive input from board members through their questions and comments. (1) Introduction of new board members: Fifteen physicians(Table I) wereaddedto the board beginning January 1990,and they were introduced. New board members are selectedentirely on their record as nonboard reviewers for the AJC. It is easyto selectthe new members.The card files of the 1,300or so nonboard AJC reviewersare reviewedand the 15 or 20 with the bestreviewing records are selected.Many other nonboard reviewersare deserving of board status, but all obviously cannot be chosen.It is hopedthat the most deserving,however,will eventually becomeboard members. The task of eliminating about 10%of the board members each year is getting progressivelymore difficult becausemost board membersdo a superbjob. The card file of each board member is reviewed after the end of the
T
TABLE
(2) Numbers of manuscripts received for review by each AJC board member in 1989: A total of
1,740manuscriptswere submitted to the AJC in 1989,a 13%increase comparedto the 1,525 submitted in 1988.The numbers and types of manuscriptssent (95% actually reviewed)to the 4 types of specialistson the board are summarizedin Table II. The 148 board memberswere sent 812 manuscripts to review, an average of 5.5 per member: 751 (95%) were reviewedon time (3 weeksfrom the mailing date to receiving date from the Bethesda,Maryland, editorial office); 22 manuscripts (3%) were not reviewed within this time period, and 39 manuscripts (5%) were returned without review. As shown in Table II, the 112 adult cardiologists reviewed the most manuscripts (a mean of 6.0), and the 13 cardiac surgeonsreviewed the least (a mean of 2.1). The numbers of manuscriptsactually reviewed by the board membersare summarizedin Figure 1. (3) AJC board members reviewing the most manuscripts in 1989:The 14 top reviewersin 1989are listed in
I New AJC Board Members Beginning in January
1990
Table III. Drs. Joel Morganroth and David Spodickwere tops. Tables IV to VI list board membersreviewing 9, 8 and 7 manuscripts, respectively, during 1989. (4) Numbers of pages and articles and types of arti-
1. David G. Benditt 2. William E. Boden 3. Kanu Chatterjee 4. Gregory J. Dehmer 5. James S. Forrester 6. Gary S. Francis 7. Jerome L. Fleg 8. W. Bruce Fye 9. Sidney Goldstein 10. David R. Holmes, Jr. 11. Richard E. Kerber 12. Eric L. Michelson 13. Natesa Pandian 14. Nanette K. Wenger 15. Salim Yusuf
TABLE
calendaryear; thosememberswith the largest numbers of reviews returned late or manuscripts returned without review are deleted. Thus, each AJC board member determineshis or her longevity on the AJC editorial board.
cles published in the AJC in 1989 and comparison to Circulation and The Journal of the American College of
Cardiology (JACC): These numbers are summarized in Table VII. The AJC published 2,922 pagesin 1988.Fewer pagesbut more articles were published in the AJC in 1989than in either Circulation or JACC. The AJC published 699 articles in 1989,a 9%increasecomparedto the 636 published in 1988. The shorter average length of articles in the AJC (4.15 pages)than in Circulation (8.55 pages) or JACC (6.60 pages) and the slightly greater
II Numbers and Types of Manuscripts Sent to AJC Board Members in 1989 According to Specialty of Board Member No. on
Specialty
Board
No. MSS Sent (No./Reviewer)
No. LR
No. BR
No. CR
No. (%) Reviews on Time
No. (%) Reviews Late
No. (%) MSS Returned Without Review
Adult cardiologist Pediatric cardiologist Cardiac surgeon Radiologist or pathologist Total
112 19 13 4
676 93 27 16
650 86 23 16
23 6 1 0
3 1 1 0
624 89 24 14
20 (3%) l(l%) 1(4%) 0
32 (5%) 3 (3%) 2 (7%) 2(12%)
148
812 (5.5)
775 (95%)
30
5
751(92%)
22 (3%)
39 (5%)
LR = long report;
MSS = manuscripts.
BR = brief report; CR = case report;
1162
(6.0) (4.9) (2.1) (4.0)
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY VOLUME 65
(92%) (96%) (89%) (88%)
content per pageof articles in the AJC madethis possible. Table VII also displays other differences among these 3 USA cardiology journals. No experimental articles (those involving nonhuman animals) were published in the AJC (except for a few in the Brief Reports section) whereas59 (11%of articles) werepublished in JACC and 98 (26% of articles) in Circulation. A unique feature of the AJC is the large number of Brief Reports published (187 [27% of articles]) whereas neither of the other 2 journals publish brief reports. Over a third of the Brief Reports published were originally submitted as fulllength manuscripts.The AJC published 68 CaseReports (10% of articles) in 1989;all had 1 to 3 casedescriptions. Relatively few editorials were published in the AJC in 1989 (32 [4.5%of articles]) comparedto Circulation (61 [16%ofarticles])andJACC(163 [31%ofarticles]).The percentagesof full-length articles on the various types of heart diseasesvaried slightly among the 3 journals. The AJC published more on systemic hypertension than did the other 2 journals combined (26 [4%] vs 6 [l%] vs 8 [2%]), and fewer articles on congenital heart diseasethan JACC (22 vs 38) but more than Circulation (6 articles). All articles published in either JACC or Circulation were categorized as if they had been submitted to the AJC. (5) Symposia published in the AJC in 1989: The AJC published 20 symposiain 1989, one more than in 1988, and they are listed in Table VIII along with their guest ’ editors and sponsors.A total of 232 articles occupying 1,240 pageswere published in the 20 symposia. (6) Developments affecting the AJC since the last editorial board meeting (March 1989): In 1989,the reg-
ular issuesof the AJC appeared every 2 weeks except during the months of August and Decemberwhen they appearedonly once. In 1990, the regular issueswill appear twice a month for all 12 months, rather than for just 10 months. The section of the journal previously called Letters was changed in January 1990 to Readers’ Comments. Nearly all published “letters” are responsesto articles published in the AJC and the name changeis intended to reflect this fact. Additionally, letters (to the editor) are actually intended to be commentsto the readersso that “letters” is not an accurate description. Finally, authors of “letters” to be published tend to write them on their own stationery, single spacedand without titles, and the name change may help in having Readers’ Comments preparedin a form similar to that of other manuscripts.It is nearly impossibleto edit a single spaced“letter” or any other single-spacedmanuscript. (7) Evaluation of the usefulness of the AJC: Determining the usefulnessof a publication is more difficult than counting the numbers of pagesor types of articles published. Of course,the numbers of paid subscribersis an important index. The number of paid subscribersof the AJC is approximately 22,000. In addition to this number the publisher sendsout several thousand copies on a rotational basis to potential new subscribers. Another possible means of evaluating the usefulness of a journal is to examine the number of its articles reviewed in annual or monthly review booksor journals. A monthly controlled circulation journal called Cardiolo-
TABLE III Top 14 AIC Reviewers in 1989 and Numbers of Manuscripts Reviewed No. Revlewed
No. MSS
0"
Name
Reviewed
LR
BR
CR
Time
1. Joel Morganroth 1. David H. Spodick 3. Abdulmassih S. lskandnan 4. Richard 0. Cannon, Ill 4. Robert L. Feldman 4. Lowell W. Perry 4. Eric J. Top01 8. Bernard R. Chaitman 8. Pamela S. Douglas 8. Julius M. Gardin 8. Leonard N. Horowitz 8. Jeffrey M. lsner 8. Spencer B. King, Ill 8. Robert A. Kloner
13 13 12
13 12
0 1
0 0
13 13
11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11 10 9 9 10 9 10
10
9
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 11 10 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Abbrevmtions
as I” Table II
27 26 25 24 23 21 20 19 2 18 i 17 i 16 2 2 15 : 14 2 13 5 12 2 11 i 10 29 8
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NUMBERS OF MANUSCRIPTS REVIEWED
flGURE 1. Nmnber of mammripts members in lBB9.
reviewed
by AJC board
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY MAY 1, 1990
1163
TABLE
IV Reviewers of Nine Manuscripts for the AJC in
Name
No. MSS Reviewed
LR
BR
No. Reviewed on CR Time
1. Peter F. Cohn 2. Robert F. DeEusk 3. Frank A. Finnerty. Jr. 4. Kenneth M. Kent 5. Arthur J. Moss 6. Carl J. Pepine 7. Nathaniel Reichek
9 9 9 9 9 9 9
9 9 8 9 8 9 9
0 0 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Abbrewations
9 8 9 8 9 9 9
as I” Table Il.
TABLE V Reviewers of Eight Manuscripts for the AJC in 1989
Name
No. MSS Reviewed
LR
BR
CR
No. Reviewed on Time
1. Jeffrey Anderson 2. George A. Belier 3. Michael H. Crawford 4. Pablo Denes 5. William H. Gaaxh 6. Eugene R. Passamani 7. Nelson B. Schiller
8 8 8 8 8 8 8
7 8 8 8 8 8 6
1 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 8 7 7 8 8 8
Abbreviations
as m Table II.
gy Board Review and edited by Dr. Peter F. Cohn contains 5 to 12 articles monthly and each is a condensed version of an article originally published in a peer-reviewed journal. Table IX summarizesthe journals containing the original articles from which the condensed articles were derived in 1989.As in 1986,1987 and 1988, the AJC was the source of the most articles. (8) Requestfor more high quality editorials: I think that it would be useful to increasethe number of editorials and editorial reviewspublished in the AJC. The editorial’s length should be determined by the complexity of the messagedelivered. One-point editorials should be short, and multiple-point ones longer. (9) Reminder to authors to supply several namesof nonlocal, nonbiasedreviewersfor their manuscripts:Editors have no monopoly on choosingthe best reviewersof manuscripts. No one should be more knowledgeableof expertsin the subjectof a manuscript than the authors of the manuscript. Thus, I urge authors to supply namespreferably 5 and when they are nonboard memberstheir addressesalso-of nonbiased,nonlocal potential reviewers of their manuscripts. It is necessaryfor an author to supply several names becausealmost certainly some of the potential reviewerswill already havea manuscript for review and a secondmanuscript is not sent to a reviewer who already possesses one, unlessthe secondmanuscript is a brief report or a casereport. Presently, in only about 20% of manuscripts submitted have authors provided names of potential reviewers.After studying for several years reviews by reviewers suggestedby authors, I am impressedthat in general they are of higher quality than 1164
TABLE VI Reviewers of Seven Manuscripts for the AX in
1989
1989
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY VOLUME 65
No. Reviewed
Name
No. MSS Reviewed
LR
BR
CR Time
1. Robert 0. Bonow 2. George A. Diamond 3. Myrvin H. Ellestad 4. Carl V. Leier 5. Joseph Lindsay, Jr. 6. Fred Morady 7. Robert J. Myerburg 8. Bertram Pitt 9. Philip J. Podrid 10. Melvin M. Scheinman 11. Barry L. Zaret 12. Warren G. Guntheroth 13. Howard P. Gutgesell 14. Grace S. Wolff
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
7 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 6
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Abbrwations
on
6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
as in Table Il.
those selectedby the AJC’s editor or associateeditors, and that the author-chosenreviewersare not more favorable to a manuscript than are editor-selectedreviewers. Indeed, many manuscripts have been reviewed by 1 author-selectedreviewer and by 1 editor-selectedreviewer and the author-selectedreviewer recommendedrejection and the editor-selected reviewer recommended acceptance of the manuscript. (10) Effectivenessofthepolicy of blind reviewsof all manuscripts: During the past 8 years authors requesting a blind review of their manuscripts have had their wishes honored.The blind review has beenaccomplishedby the authors providing a separate title page containing the manuscript’s title without the namesof authors or their institution. The title page containing the authors’ and institution’s names of course was not submitted to the reviewer. During thesepast 7 years this author-requested optional blind review processhas been used relatively infrequently (probably about 10% of submitted manuscripts) and then almost entirely by authors from less well-known medical centers. On September 1, 1989, a new policy wasinstituted, and that was to sendall manuscripts for blind review, and that policy has beenin effect to the present. I have receivedonly 1 letter from a board member commenting on the blind review policy for all manuscripts and 2 paragraphs from that letter are the following: “This is the first manuscript that I havereceived where I was askedto do a blinded review. I would like to expressmy personalobjection at being asked to do this. On the one hand a blinded review could be construed to insure fairness in the review process.On the other hand, a number of groups do poor quality work which is written up quite nicely and which time after time fails to stand the test of time and is refuted by mostother reputable groups. If I receive a manuscript with an enthusiastic endorsement of some new antiarrhythmic drug or device,I would place much more emphasison that report if it came from a laboratory which had over
rABLE VII
Number
of Pages and Types
of Articles
Published
in the Regular
Issues of The American Journal of Cardiology, Journal
)f the American College of Cardiology and Circulation in 1989 Journal of the American College of Cardrology
American Journal of Cardiology No. of pages For articles (mean/month) [pages/article] For letters (number) [number with replies] For staff, editorial board For contents in brief For contents with abstracts For boxed abstracts (for card files) For information for authors For volume indexes For miscellaneous No. of articles (mean/month) Coronary artery disease Arrhythmias and conduction defects Systemic hypertension Congestive heart failure Valvular heart disease Cardiomyopathy Congenital heart disease Methods Experimental studies Historical studies Miscellaneous Brief reports Case reports Editorials and editorral reviews From the editor
3,818 3,471 (289) [6.60] 25(25)[15] 28 28 122 0 28 63 53+ 526 (44) 100(19.0%) 52 (9.9%) 6(1.1%) 11(2.1%) 32(6.1%) 22 (4.2%) 38 (7.2%) 14(2.7%) 59(11.2%) 4 (0.8%) 15 (2.9%) 0 9(1.7%) 163 (31.0%) 0
3,356 2.903 (242) [4.15]
19(36) VI 22 77 230 0 24 75 11* 699 (58) 172 (24.6%) 70 (10.0%) 26 (3.7%) 19 (2.7%) 22(3.1%) 9(1.3%) 22(3.1%) 14 (2.0%) 0 3 (0.4%) 55 (7.9%) 187 (26.8%) 68 (9.7%) 22 (3.1%) 10(1.4%)
* Includes 42 abstracts of the cardiology section of a pedlatrac society. 1 Includes Items related to The American College of Cardiology. t For American Heart Assoaatlon News, Meetings Calendar, list of names of nonboard lesearch, Hypertension, Arterlosckrosis and Japan Heart Journal.
the years presentedwell-balanced pictures in all of their publications. On the other hand, my review would be influenced somewhat if it came from a laboratory that was always enthusiastic about every single compound or device to come along and which had close relationships with industry that might result in this ongoing string of glowing reports of new therapies. “While there may be certain inherent biasesin my review in this regard, I try to be as objective as possibleabout eachindividual review and the above factors only play a minor role in my final decision. In general, I think eachmanuscript should standon its own merit. However, if I am on the fence about whether or not a manuscript should be acceptedor rejected,knowledgeof the quality of work from the laboratory from which it is submitted would definitely influence my decision one way or the other. Finally, in thesedays where there is somuch potential for conflict of interest due to various financial and other relationships between authors and the subjects about which they are publishing, knowledge of the individual investigators is extremely important. Not that this should in any way influence whether the manuscript is published, but it would permit the reviewer to point out potential conflicts of interest to the editor and be certain that the authors have disclosed them to the editor.” The concept of reviewing all submitted manuscripts blindly was discussedby severalboard members.Several
revewers
Circulation
of manuscripts
submltted
to Clrculatlon
3,824 3,274 (273) [8.55]
1806) El 24 39 96 117 24 51 181’ 383 (32) 76 (19.8%) 25 (6.5%) 8(2.1%) 15 (3.9%) 17 (4.4%) 11 (2.9%) 6(1.6%) 6(1.6%) 98 (25.6%) 0 59 (15.4%) 0 0 61 (15.9%) 1(0.3%)
and table of contents
of Crculabon
board memberscommentedthat they were able to identify the authors and their institutions readily from the authors’ referencesto their own institutions in the manuscripts, or from the mention of the name of their institution in the text of the manuscript. Authors’ names frequently are left on the backsof figures and tables. Thus, although the manuscript-reviewprocessis intended to be blinded, authors of the manuscripts actually often prevent a blind review process.After considerablediscussion a vote was taken. It appearedthat about one-half of the editorial board memberspresentfavored the blind review policy for all manuscripts, and that the other one-half were against it. Discussedbriefly were mechanismsby which data could be obtained comparing reviewer comments and recommendations of the same manuscript reviewed blindly by one reviewer and in a nonblinded fashion by the other reviewer. The problem here, of course,is that the samereviewer cannot review the samemanuscript in both a blinded and in a nonblinded fashion. It would be easy,however,to sendthe samemanuscript for a blinded review to onereviewer and for a nonblinded review to the other reviewer and simply add up the recommendations (definitely accept, probably accept, definitely reject, probably reject) for a large number of manuscripts of those reviewed blindly comparedto those reviewed nonblindly. This policy will be instituted on April 1, 1990,for at least several months. Questionson other subjectsfrom board membersfollowed: THE AMERICAN
JOURNAL
OF CARDIOLOGY
MAY 1, 1990
1165
VIII Symposia Published in the AK in 1989
TABLE
Interval 1989 Date of Publication
Guest Editor(s)
Sponsor
Edmund l-l. Sonnenblick Norman K. Hollenberg
Winthrop Lederle
11 8
53 41
8 9
Antoon Amery Hugo Van Aken William W. Parmley Chuichi Kawai Dirk L. Brutsaert John Ross, Jr. Joseph C. Greenfield Jr. David P. Lauler Thomas C. Cesario
ByK Gulden
13
50
10
Merck, Sharp & Dohme Otsuka
8 22
37 120
16 20
GD Searle Warner-Lambert
4 8 13
42 46 59
-
William H. Frishman J. David Wallin AlbertoZanchetti Stanley H. Taylor Kazuzo Kato Jeffrey L. Anderson
Key
16
78
11
Rhone Poulenc Sante and Chugai Beecham
15
85
8
8
42
6
William C. Roberts Thomas D. Giles
DuPont Musser-Burch Society, Department of Medicine Tulane University ByK Gulden Lomberg GmbH Winthrop
9
11
43 60
8
39
9
11
63
6
Pfizer Merrell Dow Syntex Pfizer
12 6 8 17
69 38 41 137
? 6 26 24
Roussel and Chugai
24
97
10
January3 January 17
C
February2
Phosphodiesterase inhibitors Systemic hypertension (triamterene/hydrochlorothiazide) Acute hypertension (urapidil)
D E
February 21 March7
Congestive Myocardial
F G H
October 1 April 18 May2
I
June5
Technologic equipment Magnesium deficiency (MgCI) Cardiovascular disease in the elderly Systemic hypertension (labetalol)
J
June 20
A
July5
B C
July 18 August 2
heart failure (enalapril) ischemia
Angina pectoris and congestive heart failure (nicorandil) Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (Eminase) [APSACI Myocardial infarction George E. Burch Festschrift
Gary E. Sander D
August 15
E
September
F G H I
September 19 October3 October 17 November 7
Nifedipine Lipids Nicardipine Amiodipine
J
December 5
Arrhythmia
Pieter A. van Zwieten
Urapidil Cardiovascular
imaging
treatment
Carl L. Tommaso Gerald L. Wolf William H. Frishman John T. Gwynne William W. Parmley Arnold Schwartz Pieter A. van Zwieten A. John Camm Yoshio Watanabe Kazuo Yamada
232
20
(1) How often is a third review requested on a manuscript that has received 1 accept recommendation and I reject recommendation.7 Probably 20% of the time. If I feel comfortable with the subject of the manuscript, I make a decision after 2 reviews despitethe oppositerecommendationsby the 2 reviewers.Often also a reviewer might recommendrejection of a manuscript but the reviewers’ comments and criticisms are such that the recommendation could just as easily have beenaccept.Also, when 1 reviewer is extremely favorable toward a manuscript, the extremely positive review often neutralizesthe negative review. The status of the 2 reviewers also is helpful. When 1 reviewer is a seniorwell-respectedinvestigator and the other reviewer is a young beginning investigator, thesefactors are taken into consideration.Younger reviewersin general tend to be more critical I believe than the older reviewers.The 2 views often provide a nice balance.Thus, in general,I try not to seeka third review, becauseit means that the review processstarts all over again and the decisionon disposition of the manuscript is delayed. When a third review is requested I send the reviews of the first 2 reviewers to the third reviewer so
1166
(months) Symposium to Publication
Subject of Symposium
A B
5
Number Articles
Number Pagesfor Articles
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY VOLUME 65
1,240
7 14
7 -
Mean 12
that he or she . better _ understands _-. the __ issueof the particular manuscript at hand. Numerical data on the frequency of a third review will be recordedbeginning April 1,199O. Recently, in a few manuscripts receiving strongly opposing recommendations (definitely accept from 1 re viewer and definitely reject from the other reviewer), I havereturned the manuscript immediately to the reviewer (before returning it to the authors) who recommended definitely reject with the review of the reviewer who had recommendeddefinitely accept requesting that the reviewer point out to me the incorrect judgments of the favorable reviewer.This processhas not beencarried out yet in sufficient numbers of manuscripts to form a judgment on this process. (2) Should one reviewer of a manuscript be provided with the name of the other reviewer of the same manuscript? At present,each reviewer of a manuscript sent to the AJC is provided the review of the other reviewer.The other reviewer’sname,however,is camouflagedsothat it is rarely discernible.The consensuswasthat the namesof the 2 reviewers should not be revealed to each other. Thus, the present system of name concealmentwill re-
main. The exception,asmentionedearlier, is when a third review is sought and then the namesof the first 2 reviewers are disclosedto the third reviewer. (3) Are any manuscripts accepted without review?
The answer dependson whether or not the editor is considered a reviewer. If the editor is considereda reviewer, the answeris no. If the editor is not considereda reviewer, the answer is yes. Although most are sent for outside review, someeditorials that are acceptedare not sent out for review. An occasional case report or brief report is acceptedafter review by the editor only. Many casereports are declinedwithout outsidereview. Nearly all Brief Reports and all long reports are sent to 2 reviewers.An occasionalmanuscript is returned from 1 reviewer without review, and if the review by the other reviewer appears to be a particularly good one, a decision on that manuscript is made without seeking a secondreview. (4) If a manuscript is declined by another journal, can the reviews provided by that journal be submitted with the manuscript if it is then submitted to the AJC?
TABLE
IX Sources
of Articles
in Cardiology
Board Review in
1989 Journal
No. (%)
American Journal of Cardiology Journal of the American College of Cardiology American Heart Journal Circulation American Journal of Medlclne Archwes of Internal Medrcine Annals of Internal Medrcrne New England Journal of Medrcrne Bnttsh Heart Journal Total
23 (27.1) 18(21.1) 13(15.3) 13 (15.3) 6(7.1) 5 (5.9) 3 (3.5) 3 (3.5) l(l.2) 85(100)
This proceduremight allow the AJC editor to make a rapid acceptor reject decisionon the manuscript, or it might allow him to send the manuscript for reexamination to only 1 reviewer rather than 2. . . . “I would welcomea thorough evaluation of this time-saving processand I will do my best not to be offendedbecausethe manuscript had not beensent initially to the AJC. I also urge other editors of cardiovascular journals to adopt the same procedure, becauseall 4 major USA cardiovascularjournals essentiallyusethe samepool of reviewers.The concept needsfull testing so that the energiesfor reviewing will be conservedand those energiesexpended will be utilized more effectively and efficiently.” This processhas beenin effect now for 5 years, and I believethat it hasbeenuseful. Occasionally,authors who submit their manuscript with previous reviews do not send the manuscript as it appeared when it had been initially submitted. We then call the authors and request that they sendthe “unrevised” manuscript, and we learn that the authors made no revisions of their manuscript before it was sent to the AJC despite 2 or more reviews from the journal to which it had been submitted earlier. When I learn that authors made no effort to revise or respondto the reviewsreceivedfrom the journal to which it had been submitted previously, I usually return the manuscript to the authors. Nearly all of our manuscripts can be improved when we take into consideration the views of reviewers, and not to do so is an insult to the review processand a sign of a lack of desirefor excellence on the part of authors. I believe that we have received some first-class manuscripts by this procedure.
Yes. This policy was instituted in January 1985 and 3 paragraphs from that piece were as follows’: “An unfortunate principle of the peer-review process is that the best manuscripts receive the fewest reviews and the worst manuscripts receive the most reviews.The best manuscripts are usually acceptedby the first journal to which they are sent. Therefore, they receive 1 to 3 reviews,dependingon the policy of the particular journal; the manuscript usually is revised to varying degrees,and then accepted.The processfor the less-than-superbor the inferior manuscript is not sorapid. The first journal to which the manuscript is sent may acquire 2 reviews for it, and when neither reviewer recommendsacceptanceand the editor agrees,the manuscript with the reviewsis returned to the submitting author. Then the latter usually submits the manuscript to another journal, ideally after having revised the manuscript as suggestedby the reviewers from the first submission.The editor of the journal receiving the previously rejected manuscript then sendsit to 2 more reviewers-on occasion,to one who happenedto have reviewedthe manuscript for the first journal. These reviewersin turn often also provide unfavorable recommendationsfor the manuscript for the first journal. The editor then returns the rejected manuscript to the authors, who in turn sendit to anotherjournal with or without additional (5) How often do authors provide suggestions for reviewers of their submitted manuscripts? Although we revisions. The duplication processcontinues. have not kept records, I estimate that about 20% of au“To prevent this depletion of reviewers’energies and also to prevent further publication delay, I sugthors provide namesof potential reviewers.I would like to seethis percent over 75%. I am convinced that scholarly gest to authors who submit a manuscript rejected by another journal to the AJC that the authors authors can identify reviewersof their manuscriptsbetter than can editors. I do not know how to substantiate this enclosecopiesof all reviewsfrom the previousjournal, a copy of the original manuscript, 3 copiesof view. the revised manuscript, and a responseto all items (6) Dr. William Ganz questioned the policy of the lack of experimental (nonhuman) type articles in the raised by all reviewersfrom the previousjournal. In other words, the responseto the reviews from the AJC, suggesting that this policy might diminish the prestige of the AJC, particularly in the eyes of young previousjournal should be identical to the response investigators. This issueis an important one.The decision given reviews had they been sent from the AJC.
THE AMERICAN
JOURNAL
OF CARDIOLOGY
MAY 1, 1990
i
167
to eliminate publication of experimental studies (except in the Brief Report,section of the journal) was made in 1986,at the time when the number of pagespublished in the journal was dramatically reduced. The reduction actually was short-lived (1 year) due to a changein ownership, but subsequently the numbers of manuscripts receivedhasincreasedfar in excessof the numbersof pages available. (In 1989 we received 1,740 manuscripts; in 1982 the number was 1,100, and in 1982 we published 300 more pages than in 1989.) Because experimental manuscriptsare usually the longestof any submitted, it is simply not possible to keep the lag time (interval from acceptanceof.a manuscript to its publication) short, and accept experimental manuscripts. I am convinced that our having the shortest lag time of any peer-reviewed cardiology journal in the world (4 months) encourages authors to send us manuscripts that might otherwise be sent to another journal. We publish manuscripts in a shorter time period than are abstracts published at the annual scientific sessionsof either The American Heart Association or The Coliege of Cardiology. Additionally, severalreadershipsurveyshave indicated that the experimental articles are usually the least read portions of the journal. And our subscribersare paid onesindependentof
1 iti8
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY VOLUME 65
any society. Until the number of pagespublished in the AJC increasessubstantially I believe it best for the journal to remain a purely clinical one. (9) How many paid subscribers to the AJC are in non-USA countries? The publisher indicated that this
number was approximately 4,000. The non-USA pool of potential subscribers,of course,is a large one,and mechanisms to increase this number are presently being discussed. The board memberswere thanked for coming and the meeting was adjourned to a reception provided by the publisher. The editor welcomescommentsfrom readers on any item(s) (or others) discussedherein.
William Clifford
Roberts, MD Editor in Chief
1. Rolwts
WC.
A suggestion
Cardiol 1985:55:247.
to lighten
the load of manuscript
reviewing.
Am
J
