Editorial: Another Five Years. It is with a good deal of humility that I take over the reins of Endocrinology. I have been handed an excellent and excit- ing journal ...
0013-7227/98/$03.00/0 Endocrinology Copyright © 1998 by The Endocrine Society
Vol. 139, No. 1 Printed in U.S.A.
Editorial: Another Five Years It is with a good deal of humility that I take over the reins of Endocrinology. I have been handed an excellent and exciting journal whose operation under Shlomo Melmed has been an example of scientific excellence and administrative efficiency. Shlomo implemented a number of innovative changes and advances to Endocrinology through his 5 yr as Editor-in-Chief that made lasting and well accepted advances to the journal’s status. Publishing short editorials on high impact papers, implementing single revision cycles for manuscripts, establishing a 30% acceptance rate, ensuring rapid review of manuscripts, and designing a new style for the journal cover are just a few of the changes implemented by Shlomo. I know that the conversations I had with Shlomo and the suggestions he gave me in the past, on different journal matters, will be information I will rely on in the future. All of us as endocrinologists owe him a debt of gratitude for the continued high quality operation of the journal. In thinking about writing my first editorial as Editor-inChief of Endocrinology, I was remembering as a graduate student some years ago (not as many as some of you might think), about whether my first submission as an author of a scientific paper to Endocrinology was going to be successful. My mentor, Tom Muldoon, had forewarned me of selecting Endocrinology rather than another journal, realizing that it was the premiere endocrine journal, making it difficult to get papers accepted. This was years before UPS, FedEx, fax, or e-mail, and the process appeared to be an eternity for a submitting author. In those days, you could sense the progress of your manuscript in phases or benchmarks. For instance, if it was not immediately returned (either opened or not) then you had at least been fortunate enough to get a review. Then the eternity phase started, with the postal service at the time, delivering all correspondence, reviews, decisions, etc. It was not even considered a reality that you would get a decision before 2–3 months (which you might realize is still the minimum time frame for some current journals in this space age). Then the final phase, the arrival of the package from the journal office. This was also another deciding stage in a manuscript’s review, the size of the package. If you received just a letter envelope (which was quite rare), then you were elated because that was an indication of acceptance, as is, with no revisions. However, if you received, as most of us did, a large manila envelope, then the anxiety started. My rule of thumb was that if the package was lighter and smaller than the four copies you originally submitted, then chances were 8 out of 10 it was likely to be a request for revision because the journal and reviewers were keeping the originals
and waiting for the revised manuscript. On the other hand, if it was just as large a package as your original submission, then it was telltale: you were getting everything back you had sent to the journal office with a cordial rejection letter indicating that they were returning all the manuscripts and figures so you could resubmit them elsewhere. Much has changed since those times, but it is not surprising that the same basic scientific decision process is still in place over 25 yr later. The logistics, volume, and the efficiency of journal operations, however, have changed dramatically. Especially through the past two terms, the decision process on a regular manuscript submitted to Endocrinology has been reduced to less than a month. To accomplish this takes a concerted effort of an efficient and helpful journal office staff, conscientious, knowledgeable editors, and equally important highly knowledgeable, objective, and competent editorial board members as reviewers. I feel we have attracted such members to the operation of Endocrinology. A timely, fair, and objective review is what a scientific author expects from submission of his/her manuscript to a journal. You probably feel that these criteria do not always happen if you have had a manuscript recently rejected. Maintaining a scientific journal operation is not an easy process. It is difficult to have to reject papers; remember, editors are also authors and susceptible to the same rigors as any other author. What you as an author feel is important and novel may not be shared by the reviewers or editor of your manuscript. I have had to remind authors after making a rejection that even though something has never been published before, that does not necessarily mean that it is important or novel to the current field of study. In what has developed over the past years at Endocrinology, the number and quality of the papers we have received has steadily increased. As such, with a finite number of journal pages that can be published each year, the result is that maintaining an acceptance rate of approximately 30% is mandatory, as held by my predecessor and the publications committee. In some cases, this results in good papers being rejected. Obviously, this is very unfortunate, but if you consider it for a moment, you realize it helps to maintain the high standard of quality expected and preserved by Endocrinology as the flagship journal of The Endocrine Society. It is my hope and plan that, under our stewardship as Editors and Editor-in-Chief, the next 5 yr will maintain the high quality and standards of the journal. My plans for the future of Endocrinology will be: to maintain its continued prominence as the leading endocrine journal; to publish original high quality work that incorporates basic biochemical/molecular mechanisms, cellular signaling, organ function, and whole animal physiology towards understanding the function of the endocrine system; and to attract papers from leaders in other fields who are investigating endocrine research but do not traditionally publish in Endocrinology. We should continue to advance publication of
Received November 5, 1997. Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Kenneth S. Korach, Ph.D., Editor-in-Chief, Endocrinology, NIH-NIEHS, LRDTReceptor Bio Section, P.O. Box 12233, 111 Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709.
3
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 21 October 2016. at 11:05 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
4
Endo • 1998 Vol 139 • No 1
EDITORIAL
mechanistic endocrine studies and the utilization of new technologies from other research fields, whose findings will spur even more work in a particular endocrine research area. It will not be easy. There are now many more journals for authors to submit their papers. Many times these highly sought after papers represent topics published by other journals. I want Endocrinology to be the journal of selection when
any laboratory is considering submission of their best work. With your help as reviewers and authors, I know we can meet that goal. Kenneth S. Korach, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
The Endocrine Society. Downloaded from press.endocrine.org by [${individualUser.displayName}] on 21 October 2016. at 11:05 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. . All rights reserved.
