© 2000 by European Society of Cardiology
Copyright © 2000, European Society of Cardiology
A Brief history of Cardiovascular Research
Universiteit van Amsterdam, Academisch Medisch Centrum, 1105 AZ Amsterdam Zuidoost, The Netherlands
The founder of Cardiovascular Research, John P. Shillingford, wrote in his Editorial in the first issue of the journal: "In Great Britain the bulk of scientific papers on cardiovascular research has appeared in the British Heart Journal. For some time its editors have been aware that the increasing number of papers on basic or laboratory work might be more suitably grouped together in a separate Journal." "After careful consideration it was decided to start a new journal, Cardiovascular Research, under the auspices of the British Cardiac Society and to be published by the British Medical Association." "At the present time Cardiovascular Research will appear quarterly" [1]. Although these words might indicate that Cardiovascular Research was primarily a British journal, it was from the start an international journal; its first article came from the United States.
In 1975 R.J. Linden became the second Editor, and in 1978 the journal went "monthly". In an unsigned Editorial [2] it was stated "Reports of investigations into biological mechanisms of cardiovascular disease are particularly welcome; the dissection of the mechanisms involved in disease processes, and the consequent unfolding of the means by which the diseases can be combatted, is rarely possible in man." This is still the main aim of the journal, as was recently emphasized in the Spotlight Issue on Animal models of Human Cardiovascular disease [3].
In January 1983 Peter Sleight took over and added in his Editorial: "I personally would like to see a little more clinical physiology in this journal and will do my best to encourage that" [4].
Again, this fits entirely with our present aims, stated in the instructions to authors: "The journal welcomes submission of papers both at the molecular, subcellular, cellular, organ and organism level and of clinically oriented papers offering insight into (patho)physiological mechanisms."
As shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1, the number of papers published between 1967 and 1991 increased slightly from 81 to 124 per year, and the impact factor remained fairly constant between 1975 and 1993 at about 1.5. All that changed after David J. Hearse became the fourth Editor. In his opening Editorial "Publishers’ dawdle" – a case for treatment? [5] he wrote: "As authors who have become editors, we know full well the frustration caused by the delay between the submission of a manuscript and its final publication. All too often, the final product of our endeavours seems to gather dust on the reviewer's desk, in the editorial office, or in the final processes to the publisher." The Editorial mentions that it took only one week for Hook's classical 1667 study of lung function to be published after submission to the Royal Society. "With electronic mail, faxes and telephones, is it not time we caught up with the Royal Society's seventeenth century publication schedule?" An editorial decision on every manuscript was guaranteed within 6 weeks of receipt. A year later [6] it turned out that for the first 500 manuscripts received, the new editorial team was able to come to an initial decision within 42 days for more than 96% of the submissions. This was facilitated by the promise of a compact disk of the reviewer's choice when the report was sent before 21 days. Their Fig. 1 shows indeed that the peak of reports received was just before this deadline. Needless to say that we gratefully adopted this brilliant idea.
|
|
In 1995, the European Society of Cardiology became the owner of Cardiovascular Research and Elsevier Science became the new publisher. In our opening Editorial we wrote that "It is our aim to continue along the lines established by the previous Editorial Team. In particular we will continue the rapid, high quality review process, guaranteeing an initial editorial decision within 40 days." "At present, the balance between the number of submitted manuscripts and the available number of pages is such that only about one-third of the papers can be published" [7]. This is no longer true; recently we reported that in the past few years the number of submitted manuscripts has increased from circa 60 per month to 90 per month, and that as a consequence the acceptance rate has decreased from 35% to 28% [8]. In order to further decrease the interval between acceptance and publication, 13 issues will be published in 1999 and 14 issues in 2000. We hope that this is adequate treatment for the "Publishers’ dawdle". We also believe that we have continued the "rapid, high quality review process". For the first 3500 manuscripts received, the average initial decision time was 27 days. We succeeded in having three reviewers reports for 77% of the manuscripts. Our most treasured possession is our data base of some 2200 reviewers, who all have filled in a formatted key words form. The reviewers form the backbone of the journal, and we are extremely grateful for, and impressed by their efforts. It is both due to the reviewers and the authors that in the most recent report of the Science citation index Cardiovascular Research ranks fifth on the list of 62 journals in the cardiovascular category. Clearly, we must thank Professor Shillingford for his foresight, and the subsequent Editors for their perseverance and innovations.
This editorial must end on a sad note. News reached us that Professor Shillingford died on September 16th, 1999. When he sent us his personal note on the paper of Pelides, Reid, Thomas and Shillingford: "Inhibition by beta-blockade of the ST segment elevation after acute myocardial infarction in man", he indicated that he was gravely ill. Still, the news of his death came as a shock. We hope that he found some comfort in knowing that the Journal he founded is flourishing. We would like to dedicate this special issue of Cardiovascular Research to the memory of John P. Shillingford.
 |
References |
|---|
 Top References |
|---|
- Shillingford J.P. Editorial. Cardiovasc Res (1967) 1:1.[Medline]
- Editorial. Cardiovasc Res 1978;12:2.
- Spotlight Issue on Animal Models of Human Cardiovascular Disease. Cardiovasc Res 1998;39:1–260.
- Sleight P. Editorial. Cardiovasc Res (1983) 17:3.
- Hearse D.J., Avkiran M., Brooks G., Chambers D.J., Coetzee W.A., Curtis M.J., Kelly F.J., Shattock M.J. "Publishers’ dawdle"– a case for treatment? Cardiovasc Res (1992) 26:1–2.
[Free Full Text] - D.J. Hearse and the editorial team. Of humour, music, anger, speed, and excuses: reflections of an editorial team after one year in office. Cardiovasc Res 1992;26:1161–1163.
- Janse M.J., Coronel R., de Bakker J.M.T., Fiolet J.W.T., Levi M.M., Opthof T., Pfaffendorf M., Wilde A.A.M. Editorial. Cardiovasc Res. (1995) 30:315.
- Opthof T, Janse MJ. Reducing the backlog and improving the impact. Cardiovasc Res 199;43:1.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. Opthof, R. Coronel, and M. J Janse Where do our reviewers come from? Cardiovasc Res, April 1, 2000; 46(1): 1 - 13. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||