Editorial board

New Members of the Editorial Board and International Advisory Board of <i>Angewandte Chemie</i>

Evolution and transformation of JVS-CIT

Gender distribution in psychiatry journals' editorial boards worldwide

Don't Hold Your Breath—The Rise of Women on Journal Editorial Boards

IntroductionEach journal’s editorial and advisory board plays a critical role in resolving gender bias in the peer-review and publication process. Thus, this study aimed to quantify women’s participation in editorial and advisory boards of major dental journals. Gender data on editorial and advisory boards were extracted from major dental journals, which were then categorized by journal specialty focus. The gender of the editor-in-chief and associate editor-in-chief was noted to assess the effect of journal leadership on women’s participation in journal boards. For comparison purposes, data were also obtained regarding the percentage of women faculty for each dental specialty.ResultsOverall, in the major 69 dental journals, 14.8% of editorial board members were women. An one-way ANOVA analysis revealed statistically significant gender differences between journal specialty categories (p = 0.003) with some dental specialties’ journals demonstrating a relatively high participation of women as editorial board members. There was a significant positive correlation for various dental specialties between women’s representation in editorial and advisory boards and women in similar dental academic specialties (p = 0.02, r2 = 0.55). Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between the presence of women in journal editorial leadership and the percentage of women serving as advisory board members (p = 0.03). Our results confirmed that the under-representation of women on dental journal editorial boards was significantly different between dental science specialties. When there were more women in journal editorial leadership positions, there was a higher participation of women as editorial and advisory board members. Journals should increase the numbers of women on editorial boards in order to secure diversity, improve publication quality and recognize women’s contribution to dental science.

Crisis at the Croatian Medical Journal: Considering a Proposal for Its Destruction

To quantify gender composition of 10 high-impact general surgery journals, delineate how board composition has changed over time, and evaluate qualification metrics by gender. Underrepresentation of women on editorial boards may contribute to the gender-based achievement gap in surgery. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the editorial board gender composition among 10 high-impact general surgery journals in 1997, 2007, and 2017. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to assess differences in editors' H-indices, academic rank, and number of advanced degrees. Differences in editor turnover and multiple board positions were evaluated for each time interval. Over 20 years, the proportion of women on editorial boards increased from 5% to 19%. After controlling for time since board certification, no differences between men and women's number of advanced degrees, H-indices, or academic rank remained significant. Women and men were equally likely to hold multiple board positions (1997 P = 0.74; 2007 P = 0.42; 2017 P = 0.69), but men's editorial board tenure was longer across each time interval (1997-2007 P = 0.003; 2007-2017 P < 0.001; 1997-2017 P = 0.01). Women surgeons have a small but growing presence on surgical editorial boards, and gender-based qualification differences are likely attributable to practice length. Men's longer tenure on editorial boards may drive some of the observed disparity by limiting new appointment opportunities. Strategies such as imposing term limits or instituting merit-based performance reviews may help editorial boards capture the field's changing demographics.

III. Next on the agenda: gender

Evolution and transformation of JVS journals

For many years, the ISJ has been included within the quaintly named "basket" of eight (Bo8) premier journals, an endeavour of the Association for Information Systems' (AIS) College of Senior Scholars (CSS)1 to single out the top journals in the field of Information Systems (IS). At its 2019 meeting in Munich, concerns were expressed that the Bo8's editorial boards were insufficiently diverse and as a result the CSS commissioned a task force to investigate the extent to which the editorial boards of the eight journals reflected the diversity of the AIS itself. The task force chose to define "editorial board" as meaning the people most directly connected with managing submitted articles, that is, the Senior and Associate Editors of a journal, but excluded the advisory board or a more general list of reviewers. It collected publicly-available data (primarily from journal and individual websites), and also consulted with the editors of the eight journals, before compiling a report that is available from the CSS website2 and that has been recently published as Beath et al. (2021). In this editorial, I deal with the report insofar as it pertains to the ISJ. I chart the current state of diversity in the ISJ's editorial board, but also take issue with some of the parameters of the report itself and suggest alternative ways of examining diversity. Finally, I outline some of my plans for further diversification of the ISJ and the ways in which this diversity can be measured. The ideas in and structure of this editorial have been significantly informed by Monideepa Tarafdar (senior editor at the ISJ) and Cynthia Beath (a member of the journal's advisory board and a forthright supporter of the journal). Benchmarking diversity lies at the heart of the CSS Diversity report. As Beath et al. (2021) note, "Editorial board diversity, we believe, is a signal that the journal is open to and inclusive of all authors". The task force decided to limit its assessment of diversity to three demographic indicators, viz. gender, regional and ethnic diversity. Diversity was benchmarked on the data of the 3210 individuals who were paid-up Academic members of the AIS on 31/12/2019. Thus, the diversity of the editorial boards of the Bo8 as a whole and of the eight journals individually were compared to the diversity of AIS Academic members in terms of gender (actually sex, i.e., female or male), AIS region (1, 2 or 3) of current employment, and ethnicity.3 While gender and region of current employment are automatically collected by the AIS as part of membership demographics, ethnicity data was manually created by one of the task force members and mapped onto a simplified template that was restricted to terms adapted from the US census: (a) Chinese, (b) Indian subcontinent, (c) other Asian, (d) Black/African descent, (e) Caucasian/European descent, (f) Middle Eastern descent, (g) Hispanic (only in Region 1 because the term is largely meaningless elsewhere) and (h) Other (e.g., indigenous). In Table 1 below, AIS data for these various demographic indicators are compared with ISJ data (the 68 SEs and AEs of the ISJ, current on 1 January 2021) for the same indicators. Beath et al. (2021) report a similar analysis for all eight journals (with data collected in January 2020) that includes standard deviations, but Table 1 is sufficient for the current purposes. Eyeballing the data in this way is instructive. Superficially, it appears that while the ISJ's gender proportions are roughly in line with the AIS benchmark (in contrast to the basket as a whole), we have too few editorial board members from region 1 (while the basket has too many), too many from region 2 (the basket is about right) and about the right number from region 3 (the basket has too few). Where ethnicity is concerned, we have too many Chinese, too few other Asians (e.g., Thai, Korean, Japanese, Burmese, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Malay, etc.), Caucasians/of European descent and of Middle Eastern descent, and about the right number of Black/of African descent, Indian subcontinent and Hispanic. My immediate observation when I saw the numbers was to think that hitting any of the AIS benchmarks would be entirely fortuitous: while we certainly champion diversity across all aspects of the ISJ and have deliberately sought to bring in more people from historically under-represented groups, we do not deliberately attempt to emulate AIS proportions, hitherto unknown. Indeed, as the AIS membership evolves, so the proportions will evolve and thus any target is going to be a moving one. Nevertheless, I would like to see more diversity in general, and not for a small number of ethnicities to dominate. The AIS CSS report makes six recommendations for change to the CSS itself, 5 to the AIS, and 15 for the consideration of the Bo8 journal editors. I do not plan to list or address all 15 here, but I do note that one of the recommendations is that editors should establish diversity and inclusion indicators that are appropriate for each journal and then to set measurable targets related to those indicators. I caution here that while the AIS benchmarks are instructive they are also limited in their scope. However, I agree that each journal editor should identify a set of diversity and inclusion indicators that make sense in the context of the journal and its readership. Extending these indicators beyond the three that the Task Force has relied on in this report is necessary. An important aspect of the AIS CSS report, and it is one that I share, is the belief that diversity is a good thing. My interpretation of the "diversity is good" argument is that when we include a wider range of perspectives, we will make better decisions and thus enhance quality. We will also demonstrate the openness of the journal to a diversity of authors. Thus, while I am generally in favour of indicators as useful ways of thinking about diversity, and there are many indicators in this editorial, I feel that hard targets are risky because it means that we embark on the slippery slope that leads to quotas and bean counting, both of which I wish to avoid. Nevertheless, I report data for the ISJ below so as to provide an indication of the current situation with respect to various indicators. Readers can decide for themselves if more specific targets are warranted. A second area relates to transparency: journal editors need to report on their diversity and inclusion statistics somewhere, either on the journal website or else in some other public way, such as this editorial, which is freely accessible from the ISJ website. I plan to update these data on an annual basis, either in future editorials or elsewhere on the ISJ website. While the level of diversity in the ISJ is high (at least according to the AIS indicators), it could be higher, particularly with regard to the extent to which minority groups are represented. The same comment, of course, applies to the AIS itself. Achieving a higher level of diversity will require attention to a range of indicators that I outline below. However, diversity must never come at the expense of merit: we expect that SEs and AEs will fit and enhance the ethos of the journal. I have no intention of descending to the point where I cherry pick individuals exclusively for their contribution to a diversity indicator irrespective of other attributes of their suitability for the position. This brings me to a more detailed critique of the AIS report and data. Firstly, I find that the AIS region and ethnicity coding to be coarse: just three regions and eight ethnic groups. Splitting AIS members into (only) three regions conceals a huge lack of diversity. The vast majority (88%) of Region 1 AIS members live in one country, the USA, but as a journal editor, I would like to seek submissions from authors distributed across the region. This will have an impact on targets: while I think we do need more Region 1 editorial board members, they do not all have to come from the USA. They should come from across the region. Thus, I plan to search for potential SEs and AEs from all countries within Region 1. To that end, I recently appointed an AE from Brazil and I am actively seeking other qualified individuals. A similar problem exists in Region 2, where the vast majority of AIS members work in Western Europe, with very few in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and all of Africa. The almost complete absence of African scholars grossly limits the diversity of the AIS. A similar pattern applies to the ISJ editorial board, and while we do have African scholars on the ISJ editorial board, none of them currently live in Africa. Finally, Region 3 has better diversity data both among AIS members and with respect to ISJ editorial board members, who come from various parts of Asia and Australasia, though none from the Pacific Islands at the time of writing. That said, while we do have Indian scholars among our SEs and AEs, none of them actually live in India and only one received her PhD from India. Diversity is not just gender, country of birth and ethnicity: it is also where one studied, was professionally socialised, where one lives, works and breathes. Thus, using the region of employment or residence but not the natal origin or the location of postgraduate study as the basis of regional classification is quite problematic because the AIS regions are so large and conceal so much diversity. I do not find the AIS regions a good proxy for anything very useful except the most general kind of assessment of where editorial board members live. As I argue below, the actual state of diversity in the ISJ's editorial board is much richer than the data in the AIS CSS report suggests. But what we need to do is to examine some different aspects of the diversity. My first step was to look at the country of current employment, the country where a PhD was obtained and the natal origin (country) of the ISJ's SEs and AEs. This is presented in Table 2 below. Here, a more detailed picture emerges, with 36 countries indicated. Our editorial board members live in 16 countries, earned their PhDs in 17 countries and have natal origins in 29 countries. While 24% of our editorial board members were born in, studied in and now live in the same country, most of them moved at some stage, which I suspect parallels behaviour across the AIS more generally. Considering our SEs and AEs, some stayed at home to study and then moved away (11%) while others moved away to study and then returned (8%). Others moved away to study and then stayed there (32%). A final group moved away to study and then moved elsewhere to work (24%). These figures attest to a global diversity of the ISJ's editorial board in a way that is not captured by the AIS benchmark comparative data. However, a new bias emerges here: while 26 SEs/AEs were born in the global south (developing countries), only two received their PhDs in the global south and only five currently live in the global south. This is a matter for some concern, though it probably reflects global educational movements and cannot easily be addressed at the scale of one journal. Beyond editorial board data, I also felt that it would be instructive to examine the provenance of our authors. Who are they? Where do they live? Obtaining raw data from manuscript central is not too difficult, but parsing it by gender is not at all simple and prone to error. Although genderizing software programmes exist, these tend to be more accurate with "western" names that often tend to be gender specific, and tend to be much less accurate with non-western names. For instance, the Chinese name that is rendered as "Li Li" in the Roman alphabet (i.e., family name and given name are both Li), could involve a number of different characters in Chinese, and so could be male or female. Here are some examples: 李俐, 李力, 黎莉, 黎厉, 厉俪. All five would be romanised as Li Li (in Mandarin), but the act of romanisation removes any way of even guessing at the gender based on the characters. Incidentally, the first, third and fifth are more likely to be female, while the second and fourth are more likely to be male, but these are not absolute. Sometimes females have "male" names and vice versa. Since manuscript central only captures the romanised form, it is impossible to determine gender unless someone does an intensive search for the named individual and ideally finds a photograph or some other gender-identifiable evidence on the Internet, such as a website that uses the male or female personal pronoun. An easier solution is that we ask ScholarOne to request the inclusion of gender when a paper is submitted. However, this is controversial: some believe that the submission of gender data should never be mandatory and indeed, in some countries, it is illegal to collect it. Despite these genderising challenges, I attempted to assess the gender distribution of submissions to ISJ, in response to a request that I look for change in gender distribution of submissions to the journal pre- and during-pandemic. I was able to assign genders to the first authors of 95% of the papers submitted in March–May of 2019 and in the same months of 2020. The results showed that the gender distribution in 2019 was very similar to the gender distribution among AIS Academic members: 35% female/65% male. In 2020, the proportion of submissions from females was actually higher: 40% female/60% male. While this is a very limited analysis of the gender distribution of submitters to ISJ, it does suggest that even during challenging times, the journal is attracting significant submissions from females. Nevertheless, manuscript central data for the ISJ do indicate the country from which the first author is submitting and this provides a very rough indicator of geographical diversity. Therefore, I downloaded the metadata for all submissions to the ISJ from 2011–2020, that is, 10 years of data. This reveals that we have received 2933 submissions from first authors working in 95 countries. See Table 3. Although 95 countries seem to provide considerable evidence of diversity, only 11 of them are in AIS Region 1, while 63 are in Region 2 and 21 are in Region 3. [AIS itself has members from 14 Region 1 countries, 63 Region 2 countries and 22 Region 3 countries]. Within Region 2, 16 countries in Africa are represented among our submitting authors [There are AIS members from 18 countries in Africa]. Where accepted papers are concerned, the situation is not quite so diverse (see Table 4). Over the same 10-year period, we accepted papers from authors based in 28 countries: three in Region 1 (only one, Brazil, is outside North America), 16 in Region 2 (though none from Africa) and 9 in Region 3. On balance, I feel that this more detailed analysis presents a richer picture of the diversity of the ISJ, but there is still room for improvement. The fact that we have submitting authors from 95 countries, and have accepted papers from authors located in 28 countries, sounds impressive, but there is no basis for comparison with other journals. What is critical is that authors should feel welcome, no matter who they are, where they come from, what kind of IS research they do. This spirit of inclusiveness is what diversity really means. It may be that we cannot accept their papers, but at the very least, we must offer constructive feedback that will help them to enhance the quality of their research and writing. This is something that we already do, and indeed I am positively biased to appoint AEs and SEs on the basis of such constructive reviews and reports, because they demonstrate affiliation with the journal's mission. Having a globally distributed editorial board helps if those board members promote the ISJ in their own communities as a desirable journal in which to publish, and as a journal that will give them constructive feedback. In appointing an AE or SE, while the ability of the individual to perform in this role at a high level is essential, I am also interested in the network of the individual concerned. AEs often assign papers to be reviewed by colleagues in their network. AEs and SEs can also promote the journal within their network. Thus, greater diversity in the editorial board is likely to lead to greater diversity in the submitting authors. This is a worthwhile objective. I hope that the AIS CSS will consider a more sophisticated analysis of diversity in future years. Finally, I come to the tricky issue of identifying diversity and inclusion indicators. As I mentioned above, I am loath to be too specific: I do not think it is sensible for us to set precise quotas for any particular AIS region, gender or location of current work. Nevertheless, I do consider that the current levels of diversity (on multiple indicators) are not only respectable and appropriate for the journal, but also self-sustaining. We have excellent networks among authors and reviewers, ensuring that the ISJ will continue to attract suitably qualified individuals in multiple roles. Nevertheless, I recognise that we have few editorial board members who either received their PhDs in or live in the global south: I am striving to appoint more. The AIS CSS Task Force suggested that editors appoint AEs on a trial basis with some mentoring from more senior members of the editorial board. I find that this is a sensible suggestion that fits well with an SE-AE structure, such that we need to be open to new junior AEs, so long as they are mentored by more senior SEs. Including junior AEs from the global south will be an effective way of ensuring that our diversity extends beyond the developed countries. Indeed, I suggest that the AIS CSS Task Force consider a 6-region split, with separate identification of developed and developing countries (global north and global south) in each of the current AIS regions. This will encourage journal editors to consider how they can achieve diversity in a more nuanced way than the current 3-way split. Where gender is concerned, if anything we should be looking to appoint more female board members since we expect the AIS proportions to shift towards parity over time. Overall, I believe that the ISJ will be best served by a variety of people in SE and AE roles across multiple indicators. If our SEs and AEs perfectly matched the AIS benchmarks for gender, location and ethnicity, but had received their professional training in a small group of countries/universities, spoke the same language, subscribed to the same epistemological beliefs and undertook the same kind of research, then that would not count as a diverse editorial board in my view. I note that while approximately half of our SEs and AEs received their PhDs and currently work in countries where English is the "national language", less than 14% were born in a country where English is the "national language". This in part reflects the global educational migrations that I referred to earlier. It also suggests that well over 80% of our SEs and AEs have successfully made that transition from a first language other-than-English to succeed in an English-dominated academic culture. I regard this as a valid aspect of diversity that we need to uphold and celebrate. I also hope that these non-native English speakers will be more understanding of the difficulties that similar authors face, will be constructive and developmental in their reviews and reports and will encourage them to submit to the ISJ. A polyglot editorial board is an asset to the journal and is something we should maintain or enhance. As I mentioned above, I believe that a diverse editorial board will help us to attract a diverse set of authors (and for that matter readers). At this point, I will also mention the editorial advisory board, which for the ISJ consists of 36 people. Many of them are associated with the same countries as the editorial board, but to that list of 36 countries, I can and It is my hope that the editorial advisory board members actively encourage potential authors to submit to the ISJ, where and so actively to the diversity of the journal. All the to this point has diversity as by multiple of demographic indicators. I suggest that this is are also indicators to which we have not the of a submitting is a journal open to and of different of research, different different epistemological It is for an editor to a of But how does that of openness into the papers that are submitted to and accepted for Here, I see two indicators, each of which is though with some Firstly, what are the of of the editorial board At the ISJ, we do collect this each AE and SE is to provide to 10 that identify We this to assign Since the are there is a considerable and many But in terms of diversity, I would like our editorial board members to be diverse to be able to any paper that is within and that is submitted to the ISJ. At the time of we have and I consider that this indicator is with further diversification not At the same it is important that members of the be very with authors should not have to the on of for instance, since an accepted should not include a to the that is The may be for an that makes an at the ISJ, we have recently the as a new of how diverse is the research that is actually submitted and Although it would not be hard to a of research though it would be more to each to this Nevertheless, such an would certainly have the of what is what we and what we I would not to do this analysis for submitted but it could be for each submitted and each published in the 10 years. However, such a will take more time than I have at my at least for the time Finally, I have to that each journal has its It would be if all journals with the same the same the same people. as diversity and inclusiveness are journals need to maintain their individual often a journal to submit to because of that indeed, I encourage authors to an with a specific journal in since if the fit is good then the of is In this issue of the ISJ, we In the first et al. (2021) the problem of and context in research in IS and the potential of research They argue that many of the associated with research are and also to their and They further argue that these may in the if do not actively on how they the research They a research for research, research as a and on three levels of and In the second and (2021) how when of their They on and study the a which is both for personal and in for professional purposes. from they that when they will using the a or their The authors to the a to they identify that are for than and they the that these In the third and (2021) examine which both an state of and how that state is with the in the context of a study with and data, the authors that with and a while and and and actual to The study to the of the by the new of based on a and that that many are an the and the of a In the fourth et al. (2021) how using as a for individuals identify has But is about how individuals to potential The authors related to from a the number of an was as the of the reports, the of the on and the of the The results showed that work to encourage and the most on related to to and with I am to my colleagues at the ISJ and elsewhere for their to multiple of this Cynthia Monideepa

Gender distribution among surgical journals’ editorial boards: Empowering women surgeon scientists

Editorial boards can be of tremendous help to a busy editor of a hospital-based newsletter or magazine. This article shows you how to develop the role of the editorial board member, make certain all members know and can achieve the editor's expectations, and chair a board that shares with you a commitment to excellence in publishing. These strategies apply to other in-house publications, such as school of nursing and association newsletters as well.

Objectives Although diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are progressively being implemented across various arenas in academic medicine, biomedical research, and healthcare, significant inequities throughout medicine and biomedical research remain. One means by which to rectify these long-standing inequities is through the implementation of a position dedicated to DEI among journal editorial boards; thus, we sought to assess the extent to which this position has been implemented among high-impact biomedical research journals. Methods We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the editorial boards of the top 100 journals by impact factor (IF) across 30 medical specialties. All editorial board positions (editors-in-chief, deputy, associate, and assistant editors, as well as editorial and advisory board members) were included. We also assessed the proportion of other named-position editors (i.e. social media and statistics editors), and compared these to the proportion of DEI editors. Results Among the 100 highest IF biomedical journals (range: 12.035–508.702), 6 (6%) have a DEI editorial position. In contrast, 25 (25%) and 35 (35%) journals have at least 1 social media or statistics editorial position, respectively. The DEI editorial position comprises 0.086% of the 6974 total editorial positions, while social media (60/6974) and statistical (196/6974) editors comprise 0.86% and 2.81% of total journal editorial board positions, respectively. Conclusions Few of the most influential biomedical journals have implemented a formal, named position dedicated to DEI. Biomedical journals should consider establishing a dedicated DEI editorial position, and ensure this individual position is publicly denoted on the editorial board.

Come together: Managing Editor Theresa Kueckmann reflects on the many facets of the community that supports the Asian Journal of Organic Chemistry. Each of us lives in a world of connections to other people, albeit of varying intensity, from strong connections to family and close friends to the smile of a stranger on the street. And these interactions have the power to change us, to brighten our day or broaden our horizons. One set of interactions has to do with the submitted manuscript, at which stage the author, referees and editor work together to help every manuscript fulfill its highest potential. This process of critique and revision is well recognized to improve the scientific quality of manuscripts. In the end, it serves to make the interaction with another group—the readers—more positive. Readers may seem to be an anonymous group, but their collective behavior in which papers they choose to read (Table 1), cite (Table 2), or share informs trends and provides a feedback loop for editors, referees and authors. Authors and readers also have many overlapping interests, such as the fast publication of the newest research. At AsianJOC, we work hard to serve these interests as best we can. We were the first Wiley-VCH chemistry journal to publish accepted articles before copy editing and proofing, and we have continuously improved our service to make the articles available an average of 30 days after submission and to give the authors more control over the files and the format. The result is the publication of some 200 papers in 2016 from authors around the globe (Figure 1). Grignard Reactions in Cyclopentyl Methyl Ether Shoji Kobayashi, Keisuke Shibukawa, Yuta Miyaguchi, Araki Masuyama Full Paper, Asian J. Org. Chem. 2016, 5, 636 The Development and Application of Sulfur Dioxide Surrogates in Synthetic Organic Chemistry Edward J. Emmett, Michael C. Willis Focus Review, Asian J. Org. Chem. 2015, 4, 602 Nucleophilic Nitrenoids Through π-Acid Catalysis: Providing a Common Basis for Rapid Access into Diverse Nitrogen Heterocycles Paul W. Davies, Miguel Garzón Focus Review, Asian J. Org. Chem. 2015, 4, 694 Diverse Applications of Nitrones for the Synthesis of Heterocyclic Compounds Laura L. Anderson Focus Review, Asian J. Org. Chem. 2016, 5, 9 Catalytic Methods for Imine Synthesis Rajendra D. Patil, Subbarayappa Adimurthy Focus Review, Asian J. Org. Chem. 2013, 2, 726 Recent Advances in Diversity Oriented Synthesis Through Isatin-based Multicomponent Reactions Yunyun Liu, Hang Wang, Jieping Wan Focus Review, Asian J. Org. Chem. 2013, 2, 374 A Closer Look at Aryne Chemistry: Details that Remain Mysterious Chunrui Wu, Feng Shi Focus Review, Asian J. Org. Chem. 2013, 2, 116 Synthesis of Pyrroles, Indoles, and Carbazoles through Transition-Metal-Catalyzed C−H Functionalization Naohiko Yoshikai, Ye We Focus Review, Asian J. Org. Chem. 2013, 2, 446 Synthesis of Chiral Olefin Ligands and their Application in Asymmetric Catalysis Xiangqing Feng, Haifeng Du Focus Review, Asian J. Org. Chem. 2012, 1, 204 Pillar[n]arenes—A Novel, Highly Promising Class of Macrocyclic Host Molecules Derong Cao, Herbert Meier Focus Review, Asian J. Org. Chem. 2014, 3, 244 Regional distribution of papers published in 2016. Another set of interactions involves the members of the journal's Editorial and International Advisory Board. Through their involvement, these outstanding members of the broader scientific community help develop and grow the journal by their supportive advocacy. This year has brought some changes to the journal boards. We bid founding Editorial Board co-chair Deqing Zhang farewell and thank him for all of his efforts during the early years of the journal. The other two founding co-chairs, Keiji Maruoka and Sung Ho Kang, will continue in their roles, and we thank them for their outstanding support. They will be joined by Jian Pei of Peking University, with whom we look forward to a productive collaboration. We are pleased to announce that Xiao-Bing Lu, Dalian University of Technology, and Yixin Lu, National University of Singapore, have joined the Editorial Board, while Zhenfeng Xi and Shu-Li You along with Prof. Zhang have shifted their involvement to the International Advisory Board. The new members of the Editorial Board are introduced with brief biographies below. Our deepest thanks goes to the board co-chairs, the Editorial Board members, and the individuals on the International Advisory Board. They are the true motors driving the AsianJOC. We will celebrate the journal's fifth anniversary in July 2017 with a special issue featuring contributions from these outstanding scientists! The journal editorial office has the privilege of being embedded in an environment of sister journals with far-reaching experience. The benefits take many forms, one example of which is the joint special issue on photoredox catalysis to be published in March, 2017, together with our sister journal European Journal of Organic Chemistry and guest-edited by Professor Burkhard König of Regensburg University. Cooperation with other journals often takes less tangible forms, for example in the continual exchange of ways to improve journal workflows, in the cooperative upholding of high ethical standards, and by offering authors the chance to transfer their manuscript to a different journal if it turns out not to be a good fit for the initially selected title. At conferences, we deepen connections to board members, authors and referees and extend the journal's interactions to those not immediately connected to it in one of these roles. We also take pride in supporting the next generation of organic chemists by recognizing their outstanding work with conference poster prizes (Figure 2). Look for us in 2017 at the Organometallic Chemistry for Organic Synthesis (OMCOS) meeting in Seoul, the European Conference on Organic Synthesis in Cologne, the Asian Chemical Congress and Royal Australian Chemistry Institute 100th anniversary conference in Melbourne, and the congress of the International Society of Heterocyclic Chemistry in Regensburg, Germany. Managing Editor Theresa Kueckmann presents a poster prize award. Of course, there are many more interactions which influence the journal and help to shape its place in the community. To discuss all of them would be an undertaking much larger than the space of this editorial permits. And so I conclude by thanking all of you for the role each of you plays in making the journal what it is, through each individual interaction, and by wishing you a great start to the new year 2017! Theresa Kueckmann Managing Editor Xiao-Bing Lu earned his Ph.D. from Dalian University of Technology in 2002 under the supervision of Prof. Ren He. In the same year, he began his independent career at State Key Laboratory of Fine Chemicals, Dalian University of Technology, where he is currently full professor. He has authored over 100 scientific publications and has received awards including Young Chemist Award (Chinese Chemical Society, 2005), Natural Science Award (the Ministry of Education of China, 2005 and 2015), Young Teacher Award (Fok Ying Tung Education Foundation, 2005), Outstanding Young Scientist Fund award (National Natural Science Foundation of China, 2006) and Changjiang Professorship (the Ministry of Education of China, 2011). He is interested in the catalytic transformation of carbon dioxide and in polymerization catalysis with a focus on polymer stereochemistry control. Yixin Lu studied chemistry and received his B.Sc. from Fudan University and M.Sc. from Dalian University of Technology. He continued his graduate studies in Canada and obtained his Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry under the supervision of George Just from McGill University in 2000. He then carried out his postdoctoral research with Peter W. Schiller at Clinical Research Institute of Montreal, and subsequently worked as an RCMS fellow with Ryoji Noyori at Nagoya University. In September 2003, he started his independent career and joined the National University of Singapore (NUS), where he is now a full professor. He was the recipient of a number of awards, including Asian Core Program (ACP) Lectureship awards to China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan (2009–2016); Young/Outstanding Scientist Award from Faculty of Science, NUS (2009, 2013); GSK–SNIC Award in Organic Chemistry (2013); and Dean's Chair Professorship (2013). His research is focused on synthetic organic chemistry and medicinal chemistry. One of his key research interests is asymmetric synthesis and catalysis, particularly those processes mediated by small organic molecules.

Turn up the volume: ChemSusChem Editor in Chief David Smith introduces Volume 14 of the journal, reflects on some events at the journal throughout 2020, and looks ahead to what will happen in 2021, as well as introducing a new Chair of the journal's Editorial Board.