Copyright © 2007, European Society of Cardiology
A reluctant start and a premature finish
The Rayne Institute, St. Thomas' Hospital, London SE1 7EH, United Kingdon
* Tel.: +44 20 7188 1101; fax: +44 20 7928 0658. david.hearse{at}kcl.ac.uk
 |
1. ‘Gentle persuasion’ |
|---|
 Top 1. 'Gentle persuasion' 2. A time for...3. Making it all...4. Getting the reviewers...5. Human nature6. Other innovations7. A disappointing end |
|---|
In 1992, the lab was thriving and in order to guarantee sufficient time to continue doing hands-on research I had declined an invitation to edit a well-known cardiology journal. It was then that I received a telephone call from a senior and much respected member of the British ‘cardiological establishment’ suggesting that I should take on the editorship of Cardiovascular Research. It should have been simple to say no thanks and terminate the discussion, but in true British fashion certain ‘pressures’ were applied. The liberal use of the words ‘duty’ and ‘career’ and ‘future’ made it increasingly difficult to escape the challenge and so it came to pass ’ the establishment had its way. ... again!
|
2. A time for change |
|---|
|
Top1. 'Gentle persuasion'2. A time for...3. Making it all...4. Getting the reviewers...5. Human nature6. Other innovations7. A disappointing end |
|---|
As a still-active researcher and fairly prolific author of papers, I, like the research community at large, was often irritated by what can only be described as the cavalier attitude of journals to the importance of timely publication of new research findings ’ generally, manuscripts were processed by editorial offices at only one speed ’ very, very slow. It usually took weeks or months to get referees' reports and even longer to get a decision from any journal. On top of this publishers took an inordinate time to complete the process. Such delays often threatened the success of grant applications from young investigators surviving on 3-year grants or shorter.
Although Harvey's De Motu Cordis took 12 years to publish in 1543 and Darwin's Origin of the Species took 23 years to publish in 1858, Hook's classical study of lung function when submitted to the Royal Society in 1667 was published in less than 1 week. Surely Cardiovascular Research could aspire to the latter time frame.
Having taken on the job, I was adamant that Cardiovascular Research was going to be an ‘authors' journal’ rather than an ‘editor's fiefdom’. But how could one respond to authors' needs and speed up the publication process without jeopardizing the quality of publication? The answer seemed blindingly obvious: (i) establish an efficient editorial office that worked in a business-like manner with a rapid handling of all aspects of manuscript processing, and (ii) get good referees (bearing in mind that referees, although authors themselves, were often the primary cause of the incredible time that it took to get a decision) and speed them up ’ they had to be incentivised to make reviewing a manuscript one of their highest priorities. After all, they had to spend time doing it so why not encourage them to act sooner rather than later?
Accordingly, in the opening editorial in 1992, entitled "Publisher's dawdle ’ a case for treatment?", the following commitments were made:
- To send every manuscript out for review to at least two specialists the day that it arrived.
- To use an international panel of reviewers and consulting editors who would be encouraged to provide criticism of a constructive kind, rapidly.
- To guarantee an editorial decision on every manuscript within 6 weeks of receipt.
- To take advantage of modern communications technology for communicating with authors and also to encourage authors to submit manuscripts on disc (unheard of in 1992).
- To publish manuscripts within 12 weeks of acceptance.
Not only would the editorial team be challenged to perform but so too would be the referees, the publishers, and also the authors who, after the receipt of their referees' reports, often were the cause of significant delay.
|
3. Making it all possible |
|---|
|
Top1. 'Gentle persuasion'2. A time for...3. Making it all...4. Getting the reviewers...5. Human nature6. Other innovations7. A disappointing end |
|---|
Realizing this rash objective needed a committed, young, energetic, coordinated team prepared to process each manuscript, recruit referees, and dispatch the manuscript for review the day that it arrived and not go home until that was achieved. In this respect, I was fortunate indeed in persuading 6 members of my department: Metin Avkiran, Gavin Brooks, David Chambers, William Coetzee, Michael Curtis, Frank Kelly and Michael Shattock to act as associate editors ’ each sacrificing 1 week of their research life every 6 weeks to run, with the editor, the editorial office. Holding everything together and acting as an incredibly efficient office manager was Rita Coetzee, who introduced the concept of computerization to the Journal with its great advantages of manuscript tracking and referee data base formation.
|
4. Getting the reviewers to behave |
|---|
|
Top1. 'Gentle persuasion'2. A time for...3. Making it all...4. Getting the reviewers...5. Human nature6. Other innovations7. A disappointing end |
|---|
Reviewing manuscripts is a chore but it's also an honour and a token that at least someone somewhere thinks you know something about something. We all remember the slight thrill the first time we were asked to review for Circulation or Circulation Research but sadly, Cardiovascular Research was not in that echelon of international respect. We had to find a way, and, although frowned on by the establishment, the answer seemed to be a small incentive ’ do it fast and get a reward, do it slow and get hassled daily by energetic associate editors! But what was to be the reward? Something small, light and internationally acceptable ’ furthermore, the hard fought-for, small budget required that it be inexpensive. The first answer was frequent flyer miles but, sadly, the airlines were not interested, so we hit on the concept of a music CD ’ if the manuscript was reviewed within 21 days. The effect was astounding. The mean review/decision time for Cardiovascular Research fell instantly from many months to just a few days ’ we were quickly able to report that 95% of all submissions received a decision within 2 weeks. The music industry was delighted, CDs sailed through the door, and, hand in hand with this, manuscript submissions rocketed ’ making our task even more difficult but, nonetheless, fulfilling, especially when we saw the impact factor of the Journal leap up and grow year on year.
Perhaps the most enduring achievement of the Cardiovascular Research innovations was that we started the ‘rapid review wars’ with all journals realizing the need to respond to authors' needs ’ nowadays, rapid review and publication is the norm rather than the exception.
|
5. Human nature |
|---|
|
Top1. 'Gentle persuasion'2. A time for...3. Making it all...4. Getting the reviewers...5. Human nature6. Other innovations7. A disappointing end |
|---|
The musical taste of reviewers came as quite a surprise as did the frequent event of reviews being sent and manuscripts returned by expensive overnight courier just to meet the free CD review deadline! Likewise, frantic last-minute international telephone calls were received to assure us that the review had been completed. Reviewers, presumably anxious to build up their CD collection, even asked for more manuscripts to review!
|
6. Other innovations |
|---|
|
Top1. 'Gentle persuasion'2. A time for...3. Making it all...4. Getting the reviewers...5. Human nature6. Other innovations7. A disappointing end |
|---|
Once the Journal was up and running it was time to introduce other innovations ’ the inclusion of some art to complement the science, the introduction of occasional ‘Spotlight’ issues where all papers focused on a single subject, and various special features such as ‘Masterclass’ articles by distinguished authorities in their field.
|
7. A disappointing end |
|---|
|
Top1. 'Gentle persuasion'2. A time for...3. Making it all...4. Getting the reviewers...5. Human nature6. Other innovations7. A disappointing end |
|---|
Well before the expiry of our term in office, we discovered that the co-owners of the Journal wanted to divest themselves of the ownership, and there followed a series of events, not appropriate to describe here, that led to the entire editorial team feeling incredibly upset to the point that, with enormous reluctance, we felt compelled to resign. This we did, in some sense with a feeling of relief (the pressure was off) and pride (the Journal, we were told, had been ‘turned around’). Anxious to see the success of the Journal continue, my last task was to persuade my very dear friend Giel Janse to pick up the baton – it was now my turn to apply the moral pressure – and, when he finally (and probably reluctantly) said yes, we handed him the discs, the stock of CDs, and several filing cabinets with a great sense of satisfaction. There was one final task ’ to thank my team of remarkable Associate Editors for their phenomenal contribution, and this took the form of a very memorable, very liquid (Cloudy Bay), and very long lunch at Raymond Blanc's magnificent Le Manoir aux Quat'Saisons restaurant near Oxford ’ not far from where we had received our first filing cabinet of manuscripts from Peter Sleight.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||