A reluctant start and a premature finish

Abstract

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! 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 … * Tel.: +44 20 7188 1101; fax: +44 20 7928 0658. david.hearse{at}kcl.ac.uk