Goodbye International Journal of Andrology, welcome Andrology!

Abstract

This issue of the International Journal of Andrology (IJA) is the last one. The reason for its disappearance is quite unprecedented: the two top journals in the field of andrology, IJA and its American counterpart, Journal of Andrology (JA) have decided to join forces rather than continue competing against each other. This historical move will undoubtedly strengthen the combined journal and the transatlantic collaboration between the two societies endorsing the two journals: the European Academy of Andrology (EAA) and the American Society of Andrology (ASA). In this editorial, written jointly by the founder and long-term chairman of the IJA publication committee, and the current and former chief editors, we look back at the history of the journal and its achievements. A bit of bibliometric data are presented to reflect on the most discussed and cited topics during the journal’s existence. It is noteworthy that the current year, 2012, marks two anniversaries: 35 years of IJA and 20 years of EAA. Round anniversaries are a good excuse to look back but they are also a perfect opportunity for good wishes for the future. The beginning of ‘organized andrology’ in Europe dates back to 1968 when I initiated the European Andrology Group, supported by Schering AG (Schirren & Toyosi, 1970). Independently, in 1970, a few clinicians and scientists interested in the development of andrology, from Barcelona, Spain, and Buenos Aires, Argentina, created the Comité Internaçional de Andrologia (CIDA), with Antoni Puigvert (Barcelona) and Roberto Mancini (Buenos Aires) elected as Presidents. The two groups learned about each other’s activities in 1970 when Mancini and I met at a Nobel Symposium on ‘Control of human fertility’ in Stockholm, Sweden. In 1972, CIDA arranged a meeting in Barcelona and I was elected as the next president. During CIDA’s initial years, financial support for its activities and congresses was provided by the Fundaçio Puigvert, run by an administrative board (Drs A. Aakvaag, W. Bardin, D. de Kretser, R. Eliasson and Miss M. Marti). Andrologia was used as the official journal but it served also as the official publication for the German Society of Andrology. After the First International Congress of Andrology organized in Barcelona (1975), CIDA decided to create its own journal and the first volume of IJA was published in 1978. At the Second International Congress of Andrology in Tel Aviv (1981), CIDA was – as planned long before – transformed into the International Society of Andrology (ISA) with Eberhard (Ebo) Nieschlag as president. However, at that stage, it was not possible to transfer IJA to ISA as two of its member societies already had their own journals. Fundaçio Puigvert accepted to keep CIDA as a silent organization with the mission to continue publishing IJA. A publication committee was formed, with me as chairman. Financially, IJA was running with a deficit and after a few years the publisher, Scriptor A/S cancelled the contract, and Blackwell Publishing in Oxford, UK, stepped in. However, IJA remained without any profit for several more years. In 1989, Fundaçion Puigvert withdrew from the journal and donated it to me, so I decided to find a new more permanent home for it. Negotiations with ASA opened a possibility but I was worried that IJA might disappear and therefore decided to find another option for the journal. On the flight back to Europe from that meeting with ASA in late 1991 I read about the European Academy of Anaesthesiology (Zorab & Vickers, 1991) and became inspired to form a similar organization for andrology, and to make such an organization the new home for IJA. Professor Richard Sharpe was the first to be involved and the discussions resulted in a more focused approach. The ISA president, Ebo Nieschlag, was also supportive. At the 7th European Testis Workshop at Schloss Elmau in Bavaria, Germany (May 1992), an interim committee was formed. Soon after, the European Academy of Andrology (EAA) became a reality and the journal was donated to the new organization. Ebo Nieschlag was elected the first president of EAA, and I became treasurer and also chairman of the Publications Committee (and stayed in the latter function until 2008). It is with great satisfaction I noticed that, in 2009, IJA had the highest Impact Factor of the andrology journals and that IJA up until now has been able to generate around €500 000 in revenues for the EAA. This is of course the result of the excellent work by all its Chief Editors, who have been intensively engaged in improvement of the journal’s scientific standard and by all those who have acted as Associate Editors on a voluntary basis. The professional work by Blackwell Publishing (and later Wiley-Blackwell) must also be gratefully recognized. Now that ASA and EAA have agreed to form a joint journal, it is an agreement between equals and both partners are to be congratulated. I hope that Andrology will develop into a journal so attractive to researchers around the world that it can afford to accept only articles with very high quality. But even more, I hope for a positive attitude towards controversial articles and reviews. Progress in science is always the result of scientists, who dare – and are allowed (!) – to go against the paradigms and its defenders. I fancy the statement by Richard Feynman (Nobel laureate in 1965) that Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts (Feynman, 1969). ‘Experts’ only too often defend the valid paradigms. If Andrology can assign a few pages in each issue devoted to ‘divergent opinions’, it will not only stimulate discussion but also the development of andrology as a scientific field related to the male reproductive tract and not limit itself to male infertility. The first Editor-in-Chief of IJA was Frank H. Comhaire of Ghent, Belgium (1978-1981). He was followed by Niels E. Skakkebæk, Copenhagen, Denmark (1981-1989), Mikko Niemi, Turku, Finland (1990-1993), Richard Sharpe, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK (1994-2001), Jorma Toppari, Turku, Finland (2001-2009) and finally Ewa Rajpert-De Meyts, Copenhagen, Denmark (2009-2012). Incidentally, all chief editors so far, were based in Northern European countries, but the supporting boards of the associate editors were composed of scientists and clinicians from the whole world. One of the chief editors, Mikko Niemi, is sadly no longer with us. Many consider him the ‘father’ of andrology in Finland. He worked in Turku as a professor and chairman of the Department of Anatomy from 1965 to 1995. Mikko Niemi was also very interested in social and political issues and worked for a long time as the head of academic affairs in the ministry of education. Before being elected as the chief editor of IJA in 1989, he served as an associate editor in IJA from 1983. Mikko Niemi passed away in 1999 at the age of 69. Below, all other chief editors reflect on their time with IJA, and voice a personal commentary on the past and future of the field of andrology. In the very early days of the IJA, a few papers had been collected before the first issue. One of the most outstanding manuscripts submitted to the new journal reported the decline of testosterone concentration in blood of Norwegian soldiers who were submitted to an exhausting military exercise (Aakvaag et al., 1978). At that time, I was a completely inexperienced editor, with neither technical support nor administrative assistance. Rapidly, the number of manuscripts being submitted increased, and it has been my policy to try to include as much of these as possible, performing whatever editorial improvements were needed. The journal contained progressively more pages, and an additional issue was even needed to incorporate all good papers. Similarly, supplements covering contemporary issues and developments were added. The focus of IJA was on clinical aspects, whereas the majority of papers published in the American counterpart, Journal of Andrology (JA) related to more basic, laboratory and animal research. When I had completed my 4 year term of Editor-in-Chief, John Aitken considered the IJA to be ‘the best’ in the field of andrology. I think this is still the case, as can be appreciated from the high citation index. May the future of andrology and of the ‘merged’ journal be bright. Why did we in the 1970s need andrology and still need it today as a medical discipline? Simply because endocrinology, physiology and pathophysiology of male reproduction are not covered by the traditional specialities within academia. On the other hand, other areas relating to the male reproductive system have always been well covered, e.g. urologists and oncologists have taken care of prostate diseases, and urologists together with sexologists have also covered penile and sexual problems in medicine. In my opinion, the specific areas that needed more attention were disorders of spermatogenesis, testicular endocrinology, endocrine and reproductive aspects of testicular cancer and the link between developmental gonadal disorders and adult testicular function. Also, research in male contraception had no ‘natural’ place in the medical world in the 1970s. Fortunately, we have succeeded to get andrology on the map in several ways. The activities have naturally been reflected in the pages of IJA. Some of the avenues ended up being not so successful, for example the use of gossypol as a male contraceptive (Waites et al., 1998). During the past 30–40 years it has become clear that we should not downgrade other sides of ‘male reproductive health’, which should probably be given higher attention than research in male contraception. Infertility due to poor semen quality and increasing trends in testicular cancer among young men are major reproductive problems that need our focus. Since the late 1980s, IJA has accommodated an increasing number of articles in this important andrological area, including articles on associations between genetics or environmental or lifestyle exposures and male reproductive health problems. A search in the database of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) suggests that many of these articles have had major impact, even outside andrological circles. I am not a fan of looking back in time, as in science it is often ‘painful’ to read what we thought then as viewed through the eyes of ‘wisdom’ of today. Arguably, one merit of looking back in time is to get a perspective on progress – how has science marched on, and are there lessons to be learnt from the past that can benefit us today? In looking back to my time as Editor of IJA, the clearest perspective is the manner in which IJA has marched forwards. During my period as Editor, the discussions were always about ‘how could we encourage researchers to submit their frontline research to IJA, not just their second-line studies?’ In the past 5 years, there is no question that authors chose IJA for their frontline andrology research; it became pre-eminent in the field. When Editor, another recurring topic was how to find a way of merging with the JA, as we recognized then (as is even more evident now) that andrology was too small a discipline to foster two or more mainstream journals. Finding the common ground and compromises to make this happen has now, finally, come about; but back then it looked intractable. My strongest memories from my time as Editor though relate to what was happening to andrology itself – its meaning and importance in the scientific world and to the public. This was when there was huge media and public interest in the role of ‘environmental oestrogens in male reproductive disorders’. This forced andrology onto centre stage in a way that was unprecedented. I played a role in this, though perhaps unwittingly (Sharpe, 2003). Since then, time has shown that, at least for human males, environmental oestrogens are probably not a threat – at least not as far as the foetal testis and its all-important steroidogenic function are concerned (watch this space!). However, the biggest lesson learned from looking back as a past Editor is it shows with clarity the merit of perseverance, not least the eventual merger of the two mainstream andrology journals. Progress in andrology, as in all aspects of science, starts with good ideas which should then encourage the research that tests and hones those ideas. IJA has been a champion of this approach and I trust that Andrology will continue to foster this attitude (as also voiced above by Rune Eliasson). I consider myself lucky to have been a part of this process. I was lucky to edit IJA during the time when all scientific journals moved from old paper-fax-mail handling of the manuscripts to electronic communication. That made the editor’s work much easier and above all much faster than before. In old times, the manuscripts were sent to reviewers in the hope that they would accept to evaluate them, and if they did not want to do that, they were requested to return the manuscript back to the editorial office. This was a very inefficient and slow process. With the new techniques we could start to enquire whether the reviewer candidates were willing to serve the journal in due time. We consider this now self-evident, but it was not possible in practice before the 2000s. Leena Karlsson served as the editorial assistant for my whole editorship and she really kept the journal moving by taking care of every single manuscript effectively. Whilst all this was technical, substance issues also developed fast during my time. We started to publish some special issues on topical themes, and particularly the first issue Environment, Reproductive Health & Fertility (edited by Jørgensen et al., 2006) was a big hit collecting an enormous number of citations, which helped the journal to increase its impact factor to become the top andrology journal. This prompted a positive spiral that helped to increase the number of submissions more than threefold in a few years. This of course gave the opportunity to get more of the best andrological papers into the journal. We all know that the impact factor alone does not make a good journal, but at the same time, it does tell something about the journal’s reputation, and excellent journals tend to have higher impact factors than mediocre ones. When I started as a Chief Editor we had discussions with ASA about a possible journal merger, but the time was not yet right for the joint venture. During my last years, those discussions were started again, and I was supporting the idea of strengthening andrology by forming one good journal that would be supported both by ASA and EAA. I participated in discussions, for example with Marvin Meistrich and Bernard Robaire to find a common basis for this major move. Now I am very happy to see the birth of the joint journal that will be for sure the beacon of andrology for years to come. I am sure that Andrology will prosper and thereby the discipline of andrology will prosper. The relative impact of IJA, and other andrology journals, has always been modest, due to the small size of this field of medical science. However, the increase in citations to the articles published in IJA has been steady over the years. Interestingly, despite the fact that the most cited papers were published in the late 1980s and 1990s, the number of citations has been increasing much more rapidly since 2006 (Fig. 1), likely reflecting not only the worldwide trend for an ever growing number of journals, publications and references but also the growing impact of andrology. Citations to IJA publications 1993–2011. Extracted from ISI Web of Knowledge. The ISI impact factor of IJA– after languishing for many years around 1.5–1.9 – has rapidly increased since 2006, and stabilized around a very respectable 3.6–4.0 (Fig. 2), placing the journal firmly at the top of the list of andrology journals. The analysis of the cumulative number of citations to papers published in IJA from the beginning of the journal’s existence paints an interesting picture of the topics that have endured over the years. Predictably, three review articles are among the top five papers, but these reviews remain relevant and highly cited. Impact factors of IJA 2006–2010. Extracted from ISI Web of Science. The top paper (by a large margin, with nearly 500 citations) proposed a hypothesis that different histological forms of testicular cancer of young adults are derived from a common precursor cell, which is likely derived from foetal germ cells (Skakkebæk et al., 1987). Although we still do not know what has caused the increase in the incidence of testicular cancer, the hypothesis concerning the initiation of this disease in foetal life remains valid 25 years after the publication. The second most cited paper (almost 200 citations) is a review on reactive oxygen species (ROS) in human spermatozoa (Griveau & Le Lannou, 1997) written 15 years ago, but still gathering a good number of references (cited 20 times in 2011). High interest in ROS and oxidative stress and their effect on sperm quality and function, which begun in the early 1990s, and has continued until now, is reflected by the presence of three original studies on this topic among the top 10 highly cited papers, the oldest one occupying fourth position (Aitken & West, 1990; de Lamirande & Gagnon, 1993; Zini et al., 1993). The third top paper comprises the guidelines for molecular analysis of the Y-chromosome (Simoni et al., 2004), which has proved very useful and has undoubtedly contributed to the improved standard of Y-chromosome analysis in andrology laboratories around the world. In fifth position for the best-cited IJA papers of all time is a review discussing the issue mentioned above by Richard Sharpe, as to whether or not oestrogens are endocrine disruptors in the male reproductive tract (Sharpe et al. 2003). This review also continues to be read and is frequently cited. Among the top 10 papers, there is also a review on developmental endocrine-disrupting effects of phthalates in the rat model (Foster, 2006), which led to an intense research on the possible harmful effect of these chemicals in humans. Although the evidence from human studies has not yet been clear-cut or conclusive, the large number of references to this IJA review article mirrors the public interest and the importance of this topic for reproductive physiopathology. In 1995, during the term of Richard Sharpe as Editor-in-Chief, the editorial board begun bestowing annual prizes for the best articles published in IJA in a given year. The awards (for the best paper and the runner-up) were sponsored generously by Hamilton Thorne Research Ltd for several years, and subsequently by the EAA. The last annual award for the best publication was given in 2005. After a hiatus of a few years, EAA has decided to renew the prize in a new format: a biennial IJA Award and Lecture, given to a scientist with an outstanding publication record in the journal during the immediately preceding years. The first recipient of the new IJA award was R. John Aitken (University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia), who presented the award lecture at the 6th European Congress of Andrology, held in Athens, Greece, in autumn 2010. The next (and the last) laureate of the IJA award has been selected by the IJA’s Editorial Board and the Executive Council of EAA among the authors of papers published in IJA within 2010–2011 (may appear in final print in 2012). The award is usually announced to the readers of IJA post factum, but exceptionally this time we chose to do it before the official ceremony, in the last issue of IJA. It is our pleasure to announce that the worthy laureate is Professor Mario Maggi (Sexual Medicine & Andrology Unit, Department of Clinical Physiopathology, University of Florence, Italy), who will present an award lecture on 29 November 2012, at the 7th European Congress of Andrology in Berlin, Germany. The award is given based on the unprecedented seven papers accepted by IJA within 2010–2011 from this group, with Mario Maggi as the senior author (Corona et al., 2010, 2011a,b,c; Fibbi et al., 2010; Lotti et al., 2011; Fisher et al., 2012). In addition, Mario Maggi was a co-author of four other papers published in IJA in the preceding year. Mario Maggi is a towering figure in andrology, endocrinology and sexual medicine. He is currently leading a very active clinical department and research group in Florence. He is the author of more than 310 scientific papers and book chapters, and is a popular speaker at both national and international meetings. Mario Maggi is a member of editorial boards of several journals and serves on numerous committees, including the Executive Council of the EAA. We congratulate Mario and wish him success with his future projects. I took over as chief editor of IJA from Jorma Toppari in 2009 and have ‘inherited’ a journal with a great standing, with the highest ever impact factor, a robust pipeline of papers and a steady stream of new submissions of increasingly high quality. So it was with mixed feelings when about a year later, I learned about the plan to join IJA and JA to form a new journal. I was sorry to see IJA disappear when it had reached a clear top position among the andrology journals. In the first round of voting I was, in fact, among the ‘naysayers’. However, after participating in several discussions with Ilpo Huhtaniemi and the EAA Council as well as with a few American colleagues, I began to appreciate the vision behind this endeavour, which is presented in detail in a recent editorial written by the two men, whose perseverance finally made this happen (Meistrich & Huhtaniemi, 2012). Furthermore, while learning more about the publishing world and seeing the aggressive spamming campaigns of numerous for-profit publishers constantly coming up with new periodicals, I realized that we need the opposite – fewer excellent journals striving for scientific quality rather than a plethora of pseudo-scientific journals that nobody reads. So when I was offered to become a co-Chief Editor of Andrology, together with Douglas Carrell appointed by ASA, I accepted enthusiastically. After several months of work by the merger committee, with great support from Allen Stevens, the journal editorial director and his team at Wiley Blackwell as well as our editorial assistant Andy Beare, Andrology was born and opened for submissions on 1 April 2012. Dr Carrell and I have an excellent collaboration, which is easy in the era of instant electronic communication, despite the long geographical distance. We have been receiving an increasing number of manuscripts and the first issue of Andrology will appear in print a month earlier than planned, to allow distribution at the upcoming European Congress of Andrology and EAU Urology Section of Andrological Urology (ESAU) in Berlin (November/December 2012). We are all proud of the achievements of IJA and take this opportunity to thank scores of editors and referees, whose hard work and dedication was instrumental in the journal’s success. We believe that Andrology will be even more successful. But its future depends on continuing support from the andrology community, so we ask you to send your best work to Andrology.