A second term for the editors. Status and goals for the review process.

Abstract

The Scientific Publishing Committee of the American Heart Association (AHA) requested the Editors to continue for a second term of 3 years. We were told that this request was motivated by performance, but we accepted with some ambivalence. Why the ambivalence, particularly since the initial 5 years have been enormously rewarding in terms of achieving our goals to publish excellent articles in the fields of cellular and molecular biology along with mechanistic, integrative, physiological studies? One of the disadvantages of editing is the thanklessness of the task. Authors, by nature, can never be thankful regarding the handling of their manuscript. If the manuscript is rejected, the Editors clearly did not appreciate the importance, quality, and novelty of the work. If the reviewers request clarification or revision, the Editors are delaying publication of their work unnecessarily. If the manuscript is accepted for publication, it merely shows that the Editors are intelligent enough to discern superb work. A particularly unpleasant feature of editing is dealing with issues of scientific fraud and related unethical practices. In view of the extent of these problems, we will devote a future editorial to this issue. Despite these disadvantages of editing, in combination with the extensive commitment involved in dealing with 1000 manuscripts per year, it is still important to pursue our initial goals to enhance further the quality of Circulation Research by working closely with the authors, reviewers, and the AHA Scientific Publishing Committee. This journal should be the main forum for the presentation of the best of cardiovascular science, focusing on novel basic mechanistic studies using molecular, cellular, and integrative approaches. At this juncture in our stewardship of the journal, it is worthwhile to point out some of the features of the review process that permit timely review and publication as well as some changes …