1000 successes as CDDIS reaches 1000 published papers!

Abstract

Even though it feels like just a few months ago, CDDIS was actually launched in 2010, meaning we are now almost at the ends its 4th year of publication.1 Moreover, in a felicitous conjunction, this coincides with publishing our 1000th paper. This is a remarkable achievement and bears witness to the trust the scientific community places in our journals. This must lead us to ask: what are the reasons for this success; what are the challenges ahead; how can we build on such success to ensure that CDDIS strives for an even better service in future? The motivation behind launching CDDIS was relatively simple. In the successful wake of our leading journal, Cell Death and Differentiation (CDD), we received an ever-increasing number of the top-quality submissions. However, force majeure – the limited number of pages that we were able to print – compelled us, reluctantly, to reject papers of indisputable merit. We had no difficulty in establishing that more than 100 papers each year were subsequently published in journals elsewhere, rated with impact factors between 4 and 6. In so doing, the authors had been obliged to reformat, resubmit, respond to further reviewers' comments and conduct further experiments – all this requiring additional time, staff and costs. Therefore, why not transfer these already-reviewed manuscripts to a new journal directly?2 Moreover, we would create an opportunity to move from the strictly mechanistic cell-death field3, 4 towards a more clinical, translational view. A name for the new title seemed obvious: Cell Death & Disease, CDDIS. To circumvent the imbalance in papers versus pages, we opted for the more up-to-date model of online only, as well as open access. Umbrella branding under the Nature Publishing Group and synergy with our core publication, CDD, together with this progressive approach, generated a warm and widespread welcome among our scientific readership. Was this, as might be implied, no better than a cynical commercial exercise to make money by publishing low quality work? Or, was it a genuine scientific success story? I should like to answer from two perspectives. First, the readership's rapid, positive reaction has far exceeded expectations. This was obvious from the following: the number of submissions made immediately (Figure 1a), Figure 1 Papers and impact factor of CDDIS. (a) Paper flow in CDDIS. Number of manuscripts per year submitted to (blue) and accepted in (green) CDDIS. Although CDDIS was published since January 2010, some papers were already submitted and accepted by the end of ... the high percentage of authors who accepted automatic transfer from CDD to CDDIS, the fact that it was read and cited even before we were in Medline and had an impact factor, the particularly high impact factor obtained was >5 on first evaluation; now it is >6 (Figure 1b). The respect CDDIS has earned itself in these four short years is further reflected in the burgeoning number of direct submissions, and that we are now celebrating the 1000th paper published. Second, the concept of a sister journal has been imitated by other journals in the same publishing family – such as Oncogene, Leukemia and even Nature itself, as well as by journals not published by NPG (for example, Cell Reports). CDDIS in not just a downmarket version of CDD with a translational perspective, while CDD itself retains greater focus on underlying molecular mechanisms of cell death but together they complement each other in the same arena. It is also very clear that authors fully understand and endorse this concept, while 1000 published manuscripts of such impact is the plainest evidence of success. At the beginning of last year, I stepped down as Editor-in-Chief, paving the way for two excellent new Editors, Eric Baehrecke, from Worcester (USA), and Yufang Shi, from Shanghai (China), to demonstrate their (considerable) worth and inject new blood alongside our new ideas. So now the Old Continent, with Guido Kroemer, is supported by the old New World and the new New World. We are considering headhunting an Editor from Antarctica – mechanisms of cell death in frostbite injury, perhaps? The journal's presence in the Far East is further bolstered by a yearly Meeting in China, with the participation of several, leading international scientists. As for the spiraling Chinese submissions, this large community has responded with incredible enthusiasm. Leaving my formal role does not in the least mean withdrawing my interest and support. On the contrary, relinquishing overall responsibility means that I can help and contribute to this now well-established journal far more than previously and at a grass-root level – particularly in view of continuing growth. How do we see CDDIS evolving? What are the challenges ahead of us? Of course we want the scientific community to contribute views and suggestions. We are indeed at its service. However, let us begin by offering a few thoughts.