 |
|
A New Editorial Team for Archives of Internal Medicine
The Choices We Make
Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1480-1481.
A new editorial team took over the reins at the Archives of Internal Medicine on January 1, 2004. In this editorial, I introduce the journal's new leaders and highlight some of the choices that we have made and continue to make in our new roles.
Our leadership group now consists of an editor and 8 deputy and associate editors, each of whom brings a background appropriate to the goals of the ARCHIVES. In addition to my new role as editor, I am also a professor and department chair of preventive medicine and professor of medicine (cardiology) at Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill. I am a board-certified internist and cardiologist with research interests focusing on prevention and rehabilitation in cardiovascular diseases. In my 25+ years in medicine, I have practiced general internal medicine and cardiology, directed a preventive cardiology clinic, served as medical director for 2 cardiac rehabilitation programs, and been on the faculty and in academic leadership positions at 2 medical schools. I have authored over 150 articles in peer-reviewed journals and previously served as an associate editor of 2 other medical journals. In deciding to take on this lead role with the ARCHIVES, I was enthusiastic about the opportunity to influence what internists and others in medicine read on a regular basis. I was also excited about the opportunity this position affords to improve the peer review process and the quality of manuscripts that are eventually published in the ARCHIVES. I expect to work hard to make this journal the best it can possibly be and am grateful for the opportunity to continue a great tradition passed down to me by the leaders who preceded me in this role.
The ARCHIVES has 3 new deputy editors, each of whom is an internal medicine faculty member at Northwestern University in Chicago and Evanston, Ill. Linda Emanuel, MD, PhD, is director of the Buehler Center on Aging at Northwestern University. One of her major interests is in improving the quality of care at the end of life. She is a prolific author and thought leader in this field and brings a broad interest in aging, medical ethics, and social medicine. Janardan Khandekar, MD, is a professor of medicine, and Department of Medicine chair at Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, Evanston. Dr Khandekar is a medical oncologist, educator, clinician, author, and researcher. Hemant Roy, MD, is an associate professor of medicine and an attending gastroenterologist, also at Northwestern Healthcare. Dr Roy's research focus is on colonic cancer.
Two other new associate editors are also faculty members at Northwestern University in Chicago. Robert Golub, MD, is an assistant professor of medicine, a practicing general internist, medical educator, and critical reader of the medical literature. At Northwestern University, Dr Golub leads the course in medical decision making for medical students. He will serve the journal as its Continuing Medical Education (CME) editor, a task that requires both careful reading of papers and thoughtful preparation of study questions. Alan Dyer, PhD, is the statistical editor. Dr Dyer is a leading researcher in cardiovascular epidemiology and a frequent statistical reviewer for numerous journals and the National Institutes of Health. Dr Dyer will contribute his expertise in medical statistics and study design to the analysis of papers being considered for publication in the ARCHIVES.
The leadership team also includes 3 members from outside of Chicago and Northwestern University. Robert Phillips, MD, PhD, is a professor of medicine at New York University and chair of internal medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, and he will serve the journal as an associate editor. He is a researcher, clinician, and medical educator, with clinical interests in hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases. Ann Nattinger, MD, MPH, is a professor of medicine and chief of general internal medicine at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. Her research interests have included a focus on breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Dr Nattinger is the editor for the Controversies section of the ARCHIVES. Finally, Patrick O'Malley, MD, MPH, is an associate professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md, and chief of general internal medicine at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC. His interests include a focus on meta-analyses and medical outcomes research. Dr O'Malley is the editor for the journal's review articles, and he will also direct the journal's new Book Reviews section. These 3 editors will also have responsibility for reviewing and selecting papers submitted by the other editors or by close colleagues of the other editors. This will allow us to maintain objectivity in the review process for all papers that are submitted.
In addition to the editor and 8 deputy and associate editors, we are blessed to have Sheila K. Kessler as the communications specialist (editorial assistant) who runs the editorial office. Many authors will come to know Sheila and will appreciate her effectiveness in managing the journal's affairs. We are nearing completion of our editorial board, and we will introduce these individuals in a future editorial.
As journal editors, we not only choose to devote ourselves to improving medical publication, we also make numerous choices as to the type of papers we wish to consider and in doing so make choices about those aspects of the ARCHIVES that we will continue and those that we will change. We have decided to continue a number of features of the journal that we believe are of interest to our readers and that represent most manuscripts submitted to us. Over 70% of papers submitted are "original research reports," and these will continue to be the main focus for us. We also continue to encourage submission of review articles, controversies, and letters to the editor. But, we have chosen to make changes as well, even in these traditional features of the ARCHIVES.
First among the changes we have instituted is a reduction in the length of most papers to 3000 words or fewer for both Original Investigations and Review Articles (potential authors are advised to consult our new guidelines for manuscript submission at http://www.archinternmed.com). We have chosen this new policy to be able to publish more articles in the journal space allotted to us. Many other leading journals use similar manuscript length requirements, and we believe that our readers will prefer the change. We also think that this change benefits authors because we can accept and publish more articles in the same journal space. To assure that review articles are more succinct and scientifically rigorous, we have decided to shift away from narrative reviews (similar to book chapters) and will now consider only systematic, critical assessments of literature and data sources pertaining to clinical topics, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention.
We also intend to change the turnaround times for peer review of submitted papers and publication of accepted manuscripts. Our goals are to complete most reviews within 2 months or less and to publish accepted papers within 5 months or less. The first goal requires the support of the journal's peer reviewers, and we will make every effort possible to support the journal's reviewers to see that this happens. One change that will occur in 2004 is that all ARCHIVES journals, and their consortium partner JAMA, will award CME credit to peer reviewers who complete reviews on time and with acceptable quality. This will require that we inform reviewers of our assessment of the quality and utility of their reviews. We are curious to see how reviewers respond to this innovation in the peer review process. We hope it will serve as an incentive to speed reviews and improve their quality. We are interested to hear opinions from authors and reviewers as to ways that you think editors can improve the peer review process.
As to reducing the turnaround time for accepted papers, the editors will have to make many difficult choices about papers we accept. While acceptance rates vary over time for all medical journals, it is clear that the acceptance rate at the ARCHIVES is one of the lowest of any leading journal. In 2003, before we assumed our duties as editors, acceptance rate at the ARCHIVES for major articles was about 20%. We do not expect this to increase, especially considering that submissions to the journal have increased since January 2004. We know that many authors will be disappointed to receive a rejection letter from us. In a future editorial, we expect to discuss the topics of peer review and responding to a review from a journal such as the ARCHIVES. Meanwhile, we refer authors to the excellent earlier article on this topic.1
A final transition that we anticipate eagerly is the move to an electronic Web-based system for all ARCHIVES journals and JAMA. When we took over the editorial duties several months ago, we chose to consider only electronic submissions (via disk or e-mail attachment). Later this year, we will move to a Web-based system for submission and peer review such as those used now by many other leading journals. We expect this to help us streamline submission, peer review, and manuscript tracking, and contribute to reduced turnaround times.
As physicians, we are all familiar with the many choices we, and our patients, make on a daily basis. Some of these decisions have great consequences. As journal editors, we recognize that we, along with our authors, readers, and peer reviewers, make many decisions that affect the content and impact of the material we publish. We pledge to uphold our responsibility to publish the best possible articles from among the papers we deem of interest to our readers. We are excited about the future of the ARCHIVES and will continue to provide you updates about some of the choices that we are making. We invite your input as well and encourage you to write us with your ideas and comments.
Philip Greenland, MD, Editor
REFERENCES
1. Cummings P, Rivara FP. Responding to reviewers' comments on submitted articles. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156:105-107.
FREE FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Peer Review and Professionalism at the Archives of Internal Medicine
Emanuel and Greenland
Arch Intern Med 2005;165:2559-2560.
FULL TEXT
Maintaining Impartial Judgment at the Archives of Internal Medicine
Greenland
Arch Intern Med 2004;164:2304-2304.
FULL TEXT
|
