Diabetologia 17, 265-266 (1979)
Diabetologia 9 by Springer-Verlag 1979
Editorial The State of the Journal K. G. M. M. Alberti
A t first sight there are not too many similarities between the President of the United States and the Editor-in-Chief of Diabetologia, apart from a passion for peanuts. Closer examination, however, reveals some striking parallels. Both are elected for a four year term - and both are ill-advised to attempt a second term. B o t h start in a blaze of goodwill and popularity and introduce early sweeping changes. Similarly after about 18 months the blemishes in the shining armour - overlooked in the initial wave of enthusiasm - have developed into obvious cracks and the hollow interior is plain for all to see. A t about two and a half years a repair job is crucial. A new system is introduced, new advisors are employed to divert attention from the principal and he rides out his term on a technicolour wave of waning popularity - and even the peanuts don't taste so good. A n o t h e r shared trait is an annual diatribe on the state of the union/ journal, including a tortuous tale of fiscal fiascos which generally mean that you will pay more for less, but will be better off really. Put simply, the time has come to inform you, the readers, of the events of the past year and to apprise you of plans for the next year. In January 1978 several changes were introduced into the journal. W e became a monthly rather than a bimonthly journal. Editorials, reviews and book reviews were introduced and an increased emphasis was placed on clinical papers to give a 5 0 : 5 0 split between clinical and experimental articles. Since then a correspondence column has b e e n introduced. Obviously the cost of the journal rose with the increased size but the charge per page was kept stable. It is hard to assess how popular these changes have been. Individual comments have b e e n favourable, but the only tangible evidence is that reflected by our circulation and by the n u m b e r of original papers submitted to us. Circulation has increased some-
what - less than we had hoped but undoubtedly the falling money supply to academic institutions and inflation have had a dampening effect. M o r e dramatic has been the increase in the numbers of papers sent to us. In 1976 we received less than 200 papers, in 1978 this figure had risen by 50% to 292, while this year we anticipate a final figure of between 360 and 380. This means that either more people are working harder (or at least writing more) which is unlikely, or the changes made in the journal have been successful, which is gratifying but generates its own problems. These arise on two main fronts: size of the journal and editorial handling of manuscripts. As I have indicated previously, ideally we would like to accept 40 to 4 5 % of submitted papers. If we do not increase the size of Diabetologia urgently our rejection rate will go up to 70 to 7 5 % - a figure which we, and I am sure you, would find unacceptable. Equally I am loath to decrease the n u m b e r of reviews that we publish as I feel strongly that these fulfil an important educational role. As of January 1980, therefore, the size of the journal will increase by 25% so that we shall be publishing two volumes per year of 480 pages each - almost twice our 1977 figures. The heart-rending cries of pale-faced bank managers can be heard already. H o w e v e r in this case the publishers, Springer Verlag, are to be congratulated. The increase in cost will be 30%, which means that only a 4 % rise in real cost has occurred to counteract inflation. In addition, we have been able to negotiate an increase in the discount available to members of the E A S D from 40% to 50%, so that members will receive 25% more journal for only 9 % more in price. I would also emphasize that as circulation increases so unit costs decrease and I would urge you all to subscribe if you do not already do so and to press 0012-186X/79/0017/0265/$01.00
266
your libraries to take the journal. (Have you ever considered the joy you would bring to your co-workers if you gave them a subscription for Christmas?) The other problem engendered by the rising flow of papers into the Editorial Office is that of time taken to process manuscripts. In some cases this has become unacceptably long and I am grateful (I think) to those of you who have written to me on this subject (sometimes with an impressive display of English vocabulary - I would that all our authors wrote so well). Our solution has been to revise our editing procedures. Four new Associate Editors have been appointed, Prof. C.N. Hales of Cambridge, Dr. S. Howell of London, Dr. M. Nattrass of Birmingham and Dr. J. Wahren of Stockholm, in place of the two retiring. Three of the new appointees are based in England which will increase the speed of communication. More manuscripts will be dealt with in their entirety by Associate Editors, which will also improve the rate of processing of manuscripts, although papers will still be handled initially and finally in our office. We shall also employ a part-time Sub-editor who will take care of necessary changes in format and style, although most of these should be
Editorial
unnecessary if authors prepare their manuscripts with careful attention to Instructions to Authors! One further change is envisaged. Often authors wish to publish a brief piece of work rapidly. We are introducing a "Rapid Communication" section to the joumal as of January. Papers will be returned within three weeks of receipt and will have an accelerated passage through the publishing stages. Instructions as to format will be included in the January issue of the journal. Finally I would thank you all for your support and comments. The quality of the joumal depends primarily on the quality of the papers you send us, and this at present is impressive. Please continue. To return to our original analogy: the state of the union between authors and editor is fair, and should improve. The budget is under control, impeachment has been delayed for a further year. There may be bigger journals, they may have larger circulations - but we try harder. Time for more peanuts. K. G. M. M. Alberti (Editor-in-Chief) Newcastleupon Tyne
Diabetologia 9 by Springer-Verlag 1979
Editorial The State of the Journal K. G. M. M. Alberti
A t first sight there are not too many similarities between the President of the United States and the Editor-in-Chief of Diabetologia, apart from a passion for peanuts. Closer examination, however, reveals some striking parallels. Both are elected for a four year term - and both are ill-advised to attempt a second term. B o t h start in a blaze of goodwill and popularity and introduce early sweeping changes. Similarly after about 18 months the blemishes in the shining armour - overlooked in the initial wave of enthusiasm - have developed into obvious cracks and the hollow interior is plain for all to see. A t about two and a half years a repair job is crucial. A new system is introduced, new advisors are employed to divert attention from the principal and he rides out his term on a technicolour wave of waning popularity - and even the peanuts don't taste so good. A n o t h e r shared trait is an annual diatribe on the state of the union/ journal, including a tortuous tale of fiscal fiascos which generally mean that you will pay more for less, but will be better off really. Put simply, the time has come to inform you, the readers, of the events of the past year and to apprise you of plans for the next year. In January 1978 several changes were introduced into the journal. W e became a monthly rather than a bimonthly journal. Editorials, reviews and book reviews were introduced and an increased emphasis was placed on clinical papers to give a 5 0 : 5 0 split between clinical and experimental articles. Since then a correspondence column has b e e n introduced. Obviously the cost of the journal rose with the increased size but the charge per page was kept stable. It is hard to assess how popular these changes have been. Individual comments have b e e n favourable, but the only tangible evidence is that reflected by our circulation and by the n u m b e r of original papers submitted to us. Circulation has increased some-
what - less than we had hoped but undoubtedly the falling money supply to academic institutions and inflation have had a dampening effect. M o r e dramatic has been the increase in the numbers of papers sent to us. In 1976 we received less than 200 papers, in 1978 this figure had risen by 50% to 292, while this year we anticipate a final figure of between 360 and 380. This means that either more people are working harder (or at least writing more) which is unlikely, or the changes made in the journal have been successful, which is gratifying but generates its own problems. These arise on two main fronts: size of the journal and editorial handling of manuscripts. As I have indicated previously, ideally we would like to accept 40 to 4 5 % of submitted papers. If we do not increase the size of Diabetologia urgently our rejection rate will go up to 70 to 7 5 % - a figure which we, and I am sure you, would find unacceptable. Equally I am loath to decrease the n u m b e r of reviews that we publish as I feel strongly that these fulfil an important educational role. As of January 1980, therefore, the size of the journal will increase by 25% so that we shall be publishing two volumes per year of 480 pages each - almost twice our 1977 figures. The heart-rending cries of pale-faced bank managers can be heard already. H o w e v e r in this case the publishers, Springer Verlag, are to be congratulated. The increase in cost will be 30%, which means that only a 4 % rise in real cost has occurred to counteract inflation. In addition, we have been able to negotiate an increase in the discount available to members of the E A S D from 40% to 50%, so that members will receive 25% more journal for only 9 % more in price. I would also emphasize that as circulation increases so unit costs decrease and I would urge you all to subscribe if you do not already do so and to press 0012-186X/79/0017/0265/$01.00
266
your libraries to take the journal. (Have you ever considered the joy you would bring to your co-workers if you gave them a subscription for Christmas?) The other problem engendered by the rising flow of papers into the Editorial Office is that of time taken to process manuscripts. In some cases this has become unacceptably long and I am grateful (I think) to those of you who have written to me on this subject (sometimes with an impressive display of English vocabulary - I would that all our authors wrote so well). Our solution has been to revise our editing procedures. Four new Associate Editors have been appointed, Prof. C.N. Hales of Cambridge, Dr. S. Howell of London, Dr. M. Nattrass of Birmingham and Dr. J. Wahren of Stockholm, in place of the two retiring. Three of the new appointees are based in England which will increase the speed of communication. More manuscripts will be dealt with in their entirety by Associate Editors, which will also improve the rate of processing of manuscripts, although papers will still be handled initially and finally in our office. We shall also employ a part-time Sub-editor who will take care of necessary changes in format and style, although most of these should be
Editorial
unnecessary if authors prepare their manuscripts with careful attention to Instructions to Authors! One further change is envisaged. Often authors wish to publish a brief piece of work rapidly. We are introducing a "Rapid Communication" section to the joumal as of January. Papers will be returned within three weeks of receipt and will have an accelerated passage through the publishing stages. Instructions as to format will be included in the January issue of the journal. Finally I would thank you all for your support and comments. The quality of the joumal depends primarily on the quality of the papers you send us, and this at present is impressive. Please continue. To return to our original analogy: the state of the union between authors and editor is fair, and should improve. The budget is under control, impeachment has been delayed for a further year. There may be bigger journals, they may have larger circulations - but we try harder. Time for more peanuts. K. G. M. M. Alberti (Editor-in-Chief) Newcastleupon Tyne
