Editorial - first issue

Abstract

There are more than 160 journals within our specialty indexed in Medline/PubMed. So is there really a need for a new gynecological and obstetrics journal?
 We believe so. Several factors may hinder researchers from publishing their studies, especially younger or non-established researchers. To our knowledge, the publishers behind all of the above journals are for-profit and as such, are limited by either not being open access journals or those that are open access, follow the pay-to-publish model. The fees for publishing are often so high that independent researchers cannot pay out of their own pocket and it can be difficult to obtain funding for article processing charges.
 Novelty is a criterion most journals ask their peer-reviewers to assess when reviewing submitted manuscripts. This means that reproduction studies and negative findings are more difficult to publish, even though they are the very backbone of the scientific method. Researchers may be hesitant to publish such studies for a hefty fee when they know they are rarely cited, which is why publication bias is a common finding in meta-analyses.
 Case reports, protocols, and descriptive studies often have difficulty in finding a suitable journal. Currently, only randomized studies are required to have a protocol registered prior to inclusion of patients. However, it is a good practice for observational studies to do so as well, as there is an inherent penchant for researchers to adjust their aims when they have access to the data. Case reports are often the type of articles less experienced colleagues first try their hands at and can be their stepping-stone into the research world.
 Finally, even though the Danish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology is an international journal exclusively publishing articles in English, we believe that having a journal that is mainly read by clinicians from Denmark may help the publishing of Danish guideline résumés and articles specific to a Danish clinical setting. Having such articles regarding changes in clinical practice published for posterity will make it easier for future clinicians to evaluate and account for the effects of such changes. The ability to cite guideline résumés through CrossRef is also encouraging for those participating in producing them and makes it easier to our non-Danish speaking colleagues in the rest of the world to read what the clinical practice is in Denmark. [abbreviated]