The Four Rs of the Red Journal: A Progress Report From the New Editorial Team

Abstract

Eighteen months have passed since Dr. James D. Cox stepped down as Editor-in-Chief and the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, the Red Journal, came under new leadership (1Cox J.D. Passing the baton—in a marathon.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 81: 1206-1207Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar). The journal has enjoyed incredible stability over the 38 years of its existence, with the torch being passed only twice in that time. When our team took the reins there were several clear goals—some of them urgent, others more long term (2Zietman A.L. Receiving the torch.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 82: 1-2Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (14) Google Scholar). Now, it is time to look back and evaluate those changes. We have chosen an illustrative device well known to every individual who has passed through radiation oncology training: the “Four Rs.” This was how we learned the factors affecting tumor response to radiation, and it is how we will judge the editorial response to the needs of our readers and our authors.Raising the BarThe Red Journal had, over the years of Dr. Cox's tenure, seen an extraordinary growth in the number of submissions. This reflected not only the growth of our burgeoning specialty with its vibrant science but also the extraordinary emergence of scientific manuscripts from previously dormant nations, particularly those in Asia. By 2012, the Red Journal was receiving more than 2000 submissions annually, and this flood threatened to submerge us if we did not establish a process to efficiently and consistently filter out the best papers. It was clear that no one individual could have sufficient expertise to assess 4000 reviews on 2000 manuscripts, and so we formed 9 different editorial teams: 1 in physics, 1 in biology, and 7 for the various clinical disease groups. Each group had an appointed Senior Editor and between 4 and 7 Associate Editors, depending on the needs of the group. That way, each group only has to deal with 150 to 250 manuscripts per year, a manageable number that allows each to be given its due consideration.Each group was charged with raising the quality of what we publish, with a very strong leaning, in the clinical sciences for example, toward novel, prospective, well-designed trials with clear methodology asking relevant questions, ideally with patient-relevant outcomes (3Foote R.L. Oncology scan—head and neck cancers.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 477-479Scopus (6) Google Scholar, 4Moran M.S. Horton J.K. Oncology scan—breast cancer.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 1-3Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar, 5Willett C. Chang D. Czito B. et al.Oncology scan—gastrointestinal cancer.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 297-300Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar, 6Mundt A.J. Oncology scan—gynecologic cancers.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 563-565Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (4) Google Scholar, 7Klein E.E. Chen Z. Chetty I.J. et al.Oncology scan—physics.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 871-873Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (7) Google Scholar). The editorial teams read the manuscripts as they come in, using their expertise to weed out those that are out of scope or of lower quality and that, even with substantial revision, we believe will never reach the level required for publication. These are declined without formal review. The remainder, still the majority, is then sent out for between 2 and 5 reviews. The opinions of the reviewers are very important, but we recognize that if we simply went by favorable reviews a good 40% of submissions would be accepted, which is still far too many for us to publish.The editorial groups discuss the favorably reviewed papers in the context of their quality, originality, and impact and give them a priority. This winnowing phase drops the number of accepted submissions down to approximately 20% to 25%, a proportion that we can publish and that we believe guarantees that almost everything that gets into print is at a scientific level that will make the journal and the specialty proud.These editorial groups, which make up our editorial board, have been extraordinarily thoughtful and functional, and their members constitute our editorial board. A place on this editorial board is anything but a sinecure. Board members also review the reviewers, grading the quality of their work, and once per year we publish the names of the top reviewers. This recognizes and rewards their efforts, and as the associate editors rotate off the board, we bring in people from this cadre of dedicated reviewers, providing a clear career “conveyer belt” heading upward.In time, we believe that the efforts of this editorial board will ultimately be recognized by an improvement in the journal's Impact Factor, although because this metric is a 2-year look-back from the previous year's publications, we know it will be several years coming.Respect for AuthorsA researcher's work can become irrelevant if not published swiftly. A journal that grinds slowly while taking a long time to review, make decisions, and publish in print is disrespectful and exasperating to authors. It will also end up publishing work that is no longer timely, which is additionally exasperating and disrespectful to readers. An urgent goal of our editorial team was to reduce a large backlog of papers that went back 18 months and get the time from acceptance to print down to less than 8 months, ideally closer to 6. We have achieved this through 3 different maneuvers.First, we negotiated with our publisher, Elsevier, for extra pages and were able to put out a significant proportion of the backlog in the 6 inflated editions during the first half of 2012. Second, we offered “online only” publication, which reduced the length of the time to print queue. Finally, in the manner previously mentioned, we have started to decline as many as 30% of submissions after editorial group discussion but without formal review. This avoids using up the good will of reviewers who can become disheartened reviewing papers that have little prospect of acceptance. It also means that the paper can be rapidly returned to the author, always with some feedback and a clear explanation as to why it was declined, so that it may be quickly resubmitted to another journal if the author chooses. For those that make it to peer review, the aim of this process is more than just a skimming of the cream for publication. We aim to improve the paper, whether we accept it or not. The reviews are critical in this but so are the “big picture” comments of the editorial team, which are often added to round out the feedback.These methods are working, but they are only sustainable if we maintain a reduced rate of acceptance. Failing that, the backlog will promptly reappear. This goal, therefore, aligns well with our first goal of raising the bar.RedesignMuch has been changed to improve the reading experience, some of it substantial, some of it cosmetic, but few will deny that the journal has a new look.Oncology Scan articlesThe editorial teams in rotation “scan” the broader literature and bring summaries of must-read articles to the attention of Red Journal readers, together with editorial comment. These make engaging reading and, for residents, frequently provide a launching pad for journal club choices and presentations. Our editorial teams have been providing a steady stream of very interesting reading, from physics and biology to lymphoma and lung cancers (7Klein E.E. Chen Z. Chetty I.J. et al.Oncology scan—physics.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 871-873Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (7) Google Scholar, 8Marples B. Madlambayan G. Oncology scan—cancer biology.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 3-5Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar, 9Brown M. Oncoloy scan—biology.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 1045-1047Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (6) Google Scholar, 10Glatstein E. Oncology scan—lymphoma.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 1071-1072Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar, 11Machtay M. Oncology scan—thoracic cancers.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 765-767Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar).HighlightsWe now flag several articles that will likely be of high interest at the beginning of the journal in an attractive, and now full color, Highlights page. We also pull out interesting images and figures from selected studies to emphasize certain points for our readers.Top downloadsCitation data are the gold standard in our specialty as we track citations of our work from other manuscripts to gauge the importance of a study. However, citation data take a very long time to mature. The Impact Factor, for example, takes 4 years to be seen. That means a paper published in 2009 has its citations counted in 2010 and 2011 for an Impact Factor published in 2012. To help our readers keep track of the more significant papers within our journal in a faster timeframe, we have written several “Top Downloads” articles, with commentary explaining why these studies are important (12Zietman A.L. Top ten clinical research downloads of 2011.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 869-970Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar, 13Zietman A.L. The Red Journal’s top 10 most downloaded articles of 2011.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 1073-1074Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar, 14Zietman A.L. The Red Journal’s most downloaded articles of 2012.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 86: 218-221Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar).Cover artThis feature is far more popular than we could ever have imagined. The talent pool within the world of radiation oncology is broad, and we have published work originating from the United States to China, work from American Society for Radiation Oncology Gold Medalists and past Presidents to private practitioners and residents, from oil painting and photography through to sculpture and glasswork. Indeed, we have now reached the point where we can only accept a fraction of those pieces submitted. This is not to discourage anyone from submitting, but please send only your best work and, ideally, something that has a compelling story to go with it. All the published covers are now displayed on our website at http://redjournal.org/content/covergallery.LayoutLayout continues to evolve as we add color, change fonts, move sections, and add summary boxes. We are always open to good ideas from readers, so send your feedback to [email protected] .We cannot recognize enough the contributions of our talented and dedicated editorial staff: Morgan Fincham, Calley Grace, and Rebecca Bertrand, who not only deal graciously with the thousand quotidian issues that arise in the production of a scientific journal but also, through their imagination and creativity, are a force for constant improvement.Recognizing the Diversity of Our FieldAs with almost any field in medicine, radiation oncology was once the domain of men. Women, however, now form an ever-increasing proportion of our trainees, and this cohort is starting to move upward, both in academic and community practice. Among our editorial board as of October 2013, 17 of the 41 Associate Editors and, most importantly, 4 of the 9 Senior Editors, are now women. This is a small, quiet, but powerful statement regarding the role of women in medicine and provides a cadre of successful academic female role models for future generations. Racial diversity is another project, and a welcome and impassioned editorial by Winkfield and Gabeau addressed this issue in March 2013 (15Winkfield K.M. Gabeau D. Why workforce diversity in oncology matters.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 85: 900-901Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar). We must also resist the temptation to become an introspective US journal and live up to the word “international” that starts our title. In fact, just 38.5% of the papers accepted between January 2012 and the time of this writing (May 2013) originated in the United States. The other 61.5% of the papers accepted during this time came from around the world, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Morocco, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.We already have representation on the editorial board from Italy, the Philippines, Turkey, Taiwan, The Netherlands, India, New Zealand, France, Germany, Austria, Singapore, Japan, and China, and we plan to increase participation from other countries with robust radiation oncology programs as well.Where Are We Headed Next?The first phase of the revolution is over, but a revolution never sleeps. There will be many small evolutions in format and style as we gain experience and as you feel more comfortable giving us advice. We plan to participate in the Elsevier “Journal of the Future” project, which looks to greatly enhance the online features of the Red Journal, making them more than just a collection of PDF files. We have started, and will expand, podcasts online. This began with interviews with the authors of the American Society for Radiation Oncology 2012 plenary session presentations, but is moving to include deeper interviews surrounding the highlighted work in each issue. Other challenges for the future include the issue of Open Access, which is increasingly mandated by research funding authorities and competition from an increasing number of online journals. We have recently revised our own open access policies and lowered our price to $2,500 for our colleagues who need or desire Apen Access for their work. The best protection against any of these threats will be to maintain a journal of the highest quality, of which radiation oncologists can be proud, and to which they are always drawn. The Red Journal has traditionally had that reputation, and we must fight to maintain it. Eighteen months have passed since Dr. James D. Cox stepped down as Editor-in-Chief and the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, the Red Journal, came under new leadership (1Cox J.D. Passing the baton—in a marathon.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 81: 1206-1207Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar). The journal has enjoyed incredible stability over the 38 years of its existence, with the torch being passed only twice in that time. When our team took the reins there were several clear goals—some of them urgent, others more long term (2Zietman A.L. Receiving the torch.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 82: 1-2Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (14) Google Scholar). Now, it is time to look back and evaluate those changes. We have chosen an illustrative device well known to every individual who has passed through radiation oncology training: the “Four Rs.” This was how we learned the factors affecting tumor response to radiation, and it is how we will judge the editorial response to the needs of our readers and our authors. Raising the BarThe Red Journal had, over the years of Dr. Cox's tenure, seen an extraordinary growth in the number of submissions. This reflected not only the growth of our burgeoning specialty with its vibrant science but also the extraordinary emergence of scientific manuscripts from previously dormant nations, particularly those in Asia. By 2012, the Red Journal was receiving more than 2000 submissions annually, and this flood threatened to submerge us if we did not establish a process to efficiently and consistently filter out the best papers. It was clear that no one individual could have sufficient expertise to assess 4000 reviews on 2000 manuscripts, and so we formed 9 different editorial teams: 1 in physics, 1 in biology, and 7 for the various clinical disease groups. Each group had an appointed Senior Editor and between 4 and 7 Associate Editors, depending on the needs of the group. That way, each group only has to deal with 150 to 250 manuscripts per year, a manageable number that allows each to be given its due consideration.Each group was charged with raising the quality of what we publish, with a very strong leaning, in the clinical sciences for example, toward novel, prospective, well-designed trials with clear methodology asking relevant questions, ideally with patient-relevant outcomes (3Foote R.L. Oncology scan—head and neck cancers.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 477-479Scopus (6) Google Scholar, 4Moran M.S. Horton J.K. Oncology scan—breast cancer.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 1-3Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar, 5Willett C. Chang D. Czito B. et al.Oncology scan—gastrointestinal cancer.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 297-300Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar, 6Mundt A.J. Oncology scan—gynecologic cancers.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 563-565Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (4) Google Scholar, 7Klein E.E. Chen Z. Chetty I.J. et al.Oncology scan—physics.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 871-873Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (7) Google Scholar). The editorial teams read the manuscripts as they come in, using their expertise to weed out those that are out of scope or of lower quality and that, even with substantial revision, we believe will never reach the level required for publication. These are declined without formal review. The remainder, still the majority, is then sent out for between 2 and 5 reviews. The opinions of the reviewers are very important, but we recognize that if we simply went by favorable reviews a good 40% of submissions would be accepted, which is still far too many for us to publish.The editorial groups discuss the favorably reviewed papers in the context of their quality, originality, and impact and give them a priority. This winnowing phase drops the number of accepted submissions down to approximately 20% to 25%, a proportion that we can publish and that we believe guarantees that almost everything that gets into print is at a scientific level that will make the journal and the specialty proud.These editorial groups, which make up our editorial board, have been extraordinarily thoughtful and functional, and their members constitute our editorial board. A place on this editorial board is anything but a sinecure. Board members also review the reviewers, grading the quality of their work, and once per year we publish the names of the top reviewers. This recognizes and rewards their efforts, and as the associate editors rotate off the board, we bring in people from this cadre of dedicated reviewers, providing a clear career “conveyer belt” heading upward.In time, we believe that the efforts of this editorial board will ultimately be recognized by an improvement in the journal's Impact Factor, although because this metric is a 2-year look-back from the previous year's publications, we know it will be several years coming. The Red Journal had, over the years of Dr. Cox's tenure, seen an extraordinary growth in the number of submissions. This reflected not only the growth of our burgeoning specialty with its vibrant science but also the extraordinary emergence of scientific manuscripts from previously dormant nations, particularly those in Asia. By 2012, the Red Journal was receiving more than 2000 submissions annually, and this flood threatened to submerge us if we did not establish a process to efficiently and consistently filter out the best papers. It was clear that no one individual could have sufficient expertise to assess 4000 reviews on 2000 manuscripts, and so we formed 9 different editorial teams: 1 in physics, 1 in biology, and 7 for the various clinical disease groups. Each group had an appointed Senior Editor and between 4 and 7 Associate Editors, depending on the needs of the group. That way, each group only has to deal with 150 to 250 manuscripts per year, a manageable number that allows each to be given its due consideration. Each group was charged with raising the quality of what we publish, with a very strong leaning, in the clinical sciences for example, toward novel, prospective, well-designed trials with clear methodology asking relevant questions, ideally with patient-relevant outcomes (3Foote R.L. Oncology scan—head and neck cancers.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 477-479Scopus (6) Google Scholar, 4Moran M.S. Horton J.K. Oncology scan—breast cancer.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 1-3Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar, 5Willett C. Chang D. Czito B. et al.Oncology scan—gastrointestinal cancer.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 297-300Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar, 6Mundt A.J. Oncology scan—gynecologic cancers.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 563-565Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (4) Google Scholar, 7Klein E.E. Chen Z. Chetty I.J. et al.Oncology scan—physics.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 871-873Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (7) Google Scholar). The editorial teams read the manuscripts as they come in, using their expertise to weed out those that are out of scope or of lower quality and that, even with substantial revision, we believe will never reach the level required for publication. These are declined without formal review. The remainder, still the majority, is then sent out for between 2 and 5 reviews. The opinions of the reviewers are very important, but we recognize that if we simply went by favorable reviews a good 40% of submissions would be accepted, which is still far too many for us to publish. The editorial groups discuss the favorably reviewed papers in the context of their quality, originality, and impact and give them a priority. This winnowing phase drops the number of accepted submissions down to approximately 20% to 25%, a proportion that we can publish and that we believe guarantees that almost everything that gets into print is at a scientific level that will make the journal and the specialty proud. These editorial groups, which make up our editorial board, have been extraordinarily thoughtful and functional, and their members constitute our editorial board. A place on this editorial board is anything but a sinecure. Board members also review the reviewers, grading the quality of their work, and once per year we publish the names of the top reviewers. This recognizes and rewards their efforts, and as the associate editors rotate off the board, we bring in people from this cadre of dedicated reviewers, providing a clear career “conveyer belt” heading upward. In time, we believe that the efforts of this editorial board will ultimately be recognized by an improvement in the journal's Impact Factor, although because this metric is a 2-year look-back from the previous year's publications, we know it will be several years coming. Respect for AuthorsA researcher's work can become irrelevant if not published swiftly. A journal that grinds slowly while taking a long time to review, make decisions, and publish in print is disrespectful and exasperating to authors. It will also end up publishing work that is no longer timely, which is additionally exasperating and disrespectful to readers. An urgent goal of our editorial team was to reduce a large backlog of papers that went back 18 months and get the time from acceptance to print down to less than 8 months, ideally closer to 6. We have achieved this through 3 different maneuvers.First, we negotiated with our publisher, Elsevier, for extra pages and were able to put out a significant proportion of the backlog in the 6 inflated editions during the first half of 2012. Second, we offered “online only” publication, which reduced the length of the time to print queue. Finally, in the manner previously mentioned, we have started to decline as many as 30% of submissions after editorial group discussion but without formal review. This avoids using up the good will of reviewers who can become disheartened reviewing papers that have little prospect of acceptance. It also means that the paper can be rapidly returned to the author, always with some feedback and a clear explanation as to why it was declined, so that it may be quickly resubmitted to another journal if the author chooses. For those that make it to peer review, the aim of this process is more than just a skimming of the cream for publication. We aim to improve the paper, whether we accept it or not. The reviews are critical in this but so are the “big picture” comments of the editorial team, which are often added to round out the feedback.These methods are working, but they are only sustainable if we maintain a reduced rate of acceptance. Failing that, the backlog will promptly reappear. This goal, therefore, aligns well with our first goal of raising the bar.RedesignMuch has been changed to improve the reading experience, some of it substantial, some of it cosmetic, but few will deny that the journal has a new look.Oncology Scan articlesThe editorial teams in rotation “scan” the broader literature and bring summaries of must-read articles to the attention of Red Journal readers, together with editorial comment. These make engaging reading and, for residents, frequently provide a launching pad for journal club choices and presentations. Our editorial teams have been providing a steady stream of very interesting reading, from physics and biology to lymphoma and lung cancers (7Klein E.E. Chen Z. Chetty I.J. et al.Oncology scan—physics.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 871-873Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (7) Google Scholar, 8Marples B. Madlambayan G. Oncology scan—cancer biology.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 3-5Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar, 9Brown M. Oncoloy scan—biology.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 1045-1047Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (6) Google Scholar, 10Glatstein E. Oncology scan—lymphoma.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 1071-1072Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar, 11Machtay M. Oncology scan—thoracic cancers.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 765-767Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar).HighlightsWe now flag several articles that will likely be of high interest at the beginning of the journal in an attractive, and now full color, Highlights page. We also pull out interesting images and figures from selected studies to emphasize certain points for our readers.Top downloadsCitation data are the gold standard in our specialty as we track citations of our work from other manuscripts to gauge the importance of a study. However, citation data take a very long time to mature. The Impact Factor, for example, takes 4 years to be seen. That means a paper published in 2009 has its citations counted in 2010 and 2011 for an Impact Factor published in 2012. To help our readers keep track of the more significant papers within our journal in a faster timeframe, we have written several “Top Downloads” articles, with commentary explaining why these studies are important (12Zietman A.L. Top ten clinical research downloads of 2011.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 869-970Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar, 13Zietman A.L. The Red Journal’s top 10 most downloaded articles of 2011.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 1073-1074Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar, 14Zietman A.L. The Red Journal’s most downloaded articles of 2012.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 86: 218-221Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar).Cover artThis feature is far more popular than we could ever have imagined. The talent pool within the world of radiation oncology is broad, and we have published work originating from the United States to China, work from American Society for Radiation Oncology Gold Medalists and past Presidents to private practitioners and residents, from oil painting and photography through to sculpture and glasswork. Indeed, we have now reached the point where we can only accept a fraction of those pieces submitted. This is not to discourage anyone from submitting, but please send only your best work and, ideally, something that has a compelling story to go with it. All the published covers are now displayed on our website at http://redjournal.org/content/covergallery.LayoutLayout continues to evolve as we add color, change fonts, move sections, and add summary boxes. We are always open to good ideas from readers, so send your feedback to [email protected] .We cannot recognize enough the contributions of our talented and dedicated editorial staff: Morgan Fincham, Calley Grace, and Rebecca Bertrand, who not only deal graciously with the thousand quotidian issues that arise in the production of a scientific journal but also, through their imagination and creativity, are a force for constant improvement. A researcher's work can become irrelevant if not published swiftly. A journal that grinds slowly while taking a long time to review, make decisions, and publish in print is disrespectful and exasperating to authors. It will also end up publishing work that is no longer timely, which is additionally exasperating and disrespectful to readers. An urgent goal of our editorial team was to reduce a large backlog of papers that went back 18 months and get the time from acceptance to print down to less than 8 months, ideally closer to 6. We have achieved this through 3 different maneuvers. First, we negotiated with our publisher, Elsevier, for extra pages and were able to put out a significant proportion of the backlog in the 6 inflated editions during the first half of 2012. Second, we offered “online only” publication, which reduced the length of the time to print queue. Finally, in the manner previously mentioned, we have started to decline as many as 30% of submissions after editorial group discussion but without formal review. This avoids using up the good will of reviewers who can become disheartened reviewing papers that have little prospect of acceptance. It also means that the paper can be rapidly returned to the author, always with some feedback and a clear explanation as to why it was declined, so that it may be quickly resubmitted to another journal if the author chooses. For those that make it to peer review, the aim of this process is more than just a skimming of the cream for publication. We aim to improve the paper, whether we accept it or not. The reviews are critical in this but so are the “big picture” comments of the editorial team, which are often added to round out the feedback. These methods are working, but they are only sustainable if we maintain a reduced rate of acceptance. Failing that, the backlog will promptly reappear. This goal, therefore, aligns well with our first goal of raising the bar. RedesignMuch has been changed to improve the reading experience, some of it substantial, some of it cosmetic, but few will deny that the journal has a new look.Oncology Scan articlesThe editorial teams in rotation “scan” the broader literature and bring summaries of must-read articles to the attention of Red Journal readers, together with editorial comment. These make engaging reading and, for residents, frequently provide a launching pad for journal club choices and presentations. Our editorial teams have been providing a steady stream of very interesting reading, from physics and biology to lymphoma and lung cancers (7Klein E.E. Chen Z. Chetty I.J. et al.Oncology scan—physics.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 871-873Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (7) Google Scholar, 8Marples B. Madlambayan G. Oncology scan—cancer biology.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 3-5Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar, 9Brown M. Oncoloy scan—biology.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 1045-1047Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (6) Google Scholar, 10Glatstein E. Oncology scan—lymphoma.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 1071-1072Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar, 11Machtay M. Oncology scan—thoracic cancers.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 765-767Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar).HighlightsWe now flag several articles that will likely be of high interest at the beginning of the journal in an attractive, and now full color, Highlights page. We also pull out interesting images and figures from selected studies to emphasize certain points for our readers.Top downloadsCitation data are the gold standard in our specialty as we track citations of our work from other manuscripts to gauge the importance of a study. However, citation data take a very long time to mature. The Impact Factor, for example, takes 4 years to be seen. That means a paper published in 2009 has its citations counted in 2010 and 2011 for an Impact Factor published in 2012. To help our readers keep track of the more significant papers within our journal in a faster timeframe, we have written several “Top Downloads” articles, with commentary explaining why these studies are important (12Zietman A.L. Top ten clinical research downloads of 2011.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 869-970Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar, 13Zietman A.L. The Red Journal’s top 10 most downloaded articles of 2011.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 1073-1074Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar, 14Zietman A.L. The Red Journal’s most downloaded articles of 2012.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 86: 218-221Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar).Cover artThis feature is far more popular than we could ever have imagined. The talent pool within the world of radiation oncology is broad, and we have published work originating from the United States to China, work from American Society for Radiation Oncology Gold Medalists and past Presidents to private practitioners and residents, from oil painting and photography through to sculpture and glasswork. Indeed, we have now reached the point where we can only accept a fraction of those pieces submitted. This is not to discourage anyone from submitting, but please send only your best work and, ideally, something that has a compelling story to go with it. All the published covers are now displayed on our website at http://redjournal.org/content/covergallery.LayoutLayout continues to evolve as we add color, change fonts, move sections, and add summary boxes. We are always open to good ideas from readers, so send your feedback to [email protected] .We cannot recognize enough the contributions of our talented and dedicated editorial staff: Morgan Fincham, Calley Grace, and Rebecca Bertrand, who not only deal graciously with the thousand quotidian issues that arise in the production of a scientific journal but also, through their imagination and creativity, are a force for constant improvement. Much has been changed to improve the reading experience, some of it substantial, some of it cosmetic, but few will deny that the journal has a new look. Oncology Scan articlesThe editorial teams in rotation “scan” the broader literature and bring summaries of must-read articles to the attention of Red Journal readers, together with editorial comment. These make engaging reading and, for residents, frequently provide a launching pad for journal club choices and presentations. Our editorial teams have been providing a steady stream of very interesting reading, from physics and biology to lymphoma and lung cancers (7Klein E.E. Chen Z. Chetty I.J. et al.Oncology scan—physics.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 871-873Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (7) Google Scholar, 8Marples B. Madlambayan G. Oncology scan—cancer biology.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 3-5Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar, 9Brown M. Oncoloy scan—biology.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 1045-1047Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (6) Google Scholar, 10Glatstein E. Oncology scan—lymphoma.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 1071-1072Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar, 11Machtay M. Oncology scan—thoracic cancers.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 765-767Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar). The editorial teams in rotation “scan” the broader literature and bring summaries of must-read articles to the attention of Red Journal readers, together with editorial comment. These make engaging reading and, for residents, frequently provide a launching pad for journal club choices and presentations. Our editorial teams have been providing a steady stream of very interesting reading, from physics and biology to lymphoma and lung cancers (7Klein E.E. Chen Z. Chetty I.J. et al.Oncology scan—physics.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 871-873Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (7) Google Scholar, 8Marples B. Madlambayan G. Oncology scan—cancer biology.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 3-5Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar, 9Brown M. Oncoloy scan—biology.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 1045-1047Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (6) Google Scholar, 10Glatstein E. Oncology scan—lymphoma.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 1071-1072Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar, 11Machtay M. Oncology scan—thoracic cancers.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 765-767Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar). HighlightsWe now flag several articles that will likely be of high interest at the beginning of the journal in an attractive, and now full color, Highlights page. We also pull out interesting images and figures from selected studies to emphasize certain points for our readers. We now flag several articles that will likely be of high interest at the beginning of the journal in an attractive, and now full color, Highlights page. We also pull out interesting images and figures from selected studies to emphasize certain points for our readers. Top downloadsCitation data are the gold standard in our specialty as we track citations of our work from other manuscripts to gauge the importance of a study. However, citation data take a very long time to mature. The Impact Factor, for example, takes 4 years to be seen. That means a paper published in 2009 has its citations counted in 2010 and 2011 for an Impact Factor published in 2012. To help our readers keep track of the more significant papers within our journal in a faster timeframe, we have written several “Top Downloads” articles, with commentary explaining why these studies are important (12Zietman A.L. Top ten clinical research downloads of 2011.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 869-970Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar, 13Zietman A.L. The Red Journal’s top 10 most downloaded articles of 2011.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 1073-1074Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar, 14Zietman A.L. The Red Journal’s most downloaded articles of 2012.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 86: 218-221Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar). Citation data are the gold standard in our specialty as we track citations of our work from other manuscripts to gauge the importance of a study. However, citation data take a very long time to mature. The Impact Factor, for example, takes 4 years to be seen. That means a paper published in 2009 has its citations counted in 2010 and 2011 for an Impact Factor published in 2012. To help our readers keep track of the more significant papers within our journal in a faster timeframe, we have written several “Top Downloads” articles, with commentary explaining why these studies are important (12Zietman A.L. Top ten clinical research downloads of 2011.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 84: 869-970Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar, 13Zietman A.L. The Red Journal’s top 10 most downloaded articles of 2011.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83: 1073-1074Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar, 14Zietman A.L. The Red Journal’s most downloaded articles of 2012.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 86: 218-221Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar). Cover artThis feature is far more popular than we could ever have imagined. The talent pool within the world of radiation oncology is broad, and we have published work originating from the United States to China, work from American Society for Radiation Oncology Gold Medalists and past Presidents to private practitioners and residents, from oil painting and photography through to sculpture and glasswork. Indeed, we have now reached the point where we can only accept a fraction of those pieces submitted. This is not to discourage anyone from submitting, but please send only your best work and, ideally, something that has a compelling story to go with it. All the published covers are now displayed on our website at http://redjournal.org/content/covergallery. This feature is far more popular than we could ever have imagined. The talent pool within the world of radiation oncology is broad, and we have published work originating from the United States to China, work from American Society for Radiation Oncology Gold Medalists and past Presidents to private practitioners and residents, from oil painting and photography through to sculpture and glasswork. Indeed, we have now reached the point where we can only accept a fraction of those pieces submitted. This is not to discourage anyone from submitting, but please send only your best work and, ideally, something that has a compelling story to go with it. All the published covers are now displayed on our website at http://redjournal.org/content/covergallery. LayoutLayout continues to evolve as we add color, change fonts, move sections, and add summary boxes. We are always open to good ideas from readers, so send your feedback to [email protected] .We cannot recognize enough the contributions of our talented and dedicated editorial staff: Morgan Fincham, Calley Grace, and Rebecca Bertrand, who not only deal graciously with the thousand quotidian issues that arise in the production of a scientific journal but also, through their imagination and creativity, are a force for constant improvement. Layout continues to evolve as we add color, change fonts, move sections, and add summary boxes. We are always open to good ideas from readers, so send your feedback to [email protected] . We cannot recognize enough the contributions of our talented and dedicated editorial staff: Morgan Fincham, Calley Grace, and Rebecca Bertrand, who not only deal graciously with the thousand quotidian issues that arise in the production of a scientific journal but also, through their imagination and creativity, are a force for constant improvement. Recognizing the Diversity of Our FieldAs with almost any field in medicine, radiation oncology was once the domain of men. Women, however, now form an ever-increasing proportion of our trainees, and this cohort is starting to move upward, both in academic and community practice. Among our editorial board as of October 2013, 17 of the 41 Associate Editors and, most importantly, 4 of the 9 Senior Editors, are now women. This is a small, quiet, but powerful statement regarding the role of women in medicine and provides a cadre of successful academic female role models for future generations. Racial diversity is another project, and a welcome and impassioned editorial by Winkfield and Gabeau addressed this issue in March 2013 (15Winkfield K.M. Gabeau D. Why workforce diversity in oncology matters.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 85: 900-901Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar). We must also resist the temptation to become an introspective US journal and live up to the word “international” that starts our title. In fact, just 38.5% of the papers accepted between January 2012 and the time of this writing (May 2013) originated in the United States. The other 61.5% of the papers accepted during this time came from around the world, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Morocco, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.We already have representation on the editorial board from Italy, the Philippines, Turkey, Taiwan, The Netherlands, India, New Zealand, France, Germany, Austria, Singapore, Japan, and China, and we plan to increase participation from other countries with robust radiation oncology programs as well. As with almost any field in medicine, radiation oncology was once the domain of men. Women, however, now form an ever-increasing proportion of our trainees, and this cohort is starting to move upward, both in academic and community practice. Among our editorial board as of October 2013, 17 of the 41 Associate Editors and, most importantly, 4 of the 9 Senior Editors, are now women. This is a small, quiet, but powerful statement regarding the role of women in medicine and provides a cadre of successful academic female role models for future generations. Racial diversity is another project, and a welcome and impassioned editorial by Winkfield and Gabeau addressed this issue in March 2013 (15Winkfield K.M. Gabeau D. Why workforce diversity in oncology matters.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 85: 900-901Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar). We must also resist the temptation to become an introspective US journal and live up to the word “international” that starts our title. In fact, just 38.5% of the papers accepted between January 2012 and the time of this writing (May 2013) originated in the United States. The other 61.5% of the papers accepted during this time came from around the world, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Morocco, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. We already have representation on the editorial board from Italy, the Philippines, Turkey, Taiwan, The Netherlands, India, New Zealand, France, Germany, Austria, Singapore, Japan, and China, and we plan to increase participation from other countries with robust radiation oncology programs as well. Where Are We Headed Next?The first phase of the revolution is over, but a revolution never sleeps. There will be many small evolutions in format and style as we gain experience and as you feel more comfortable giving us advice. We plan to participate in the Elsevier “Journal of the Future” project, which looks to greatly enhance the online features of the Red Journal, making them more than just a collection of PDF files. We have started, and will expand, podcasts online. This began with interviews with the authors of the American Society for Radiation Oncology 2012 plenary session presentations, but is moving to include deeper interviews surrounding the highlighted work in each issue. Other challenges for the future include the issue of Open Access, which is increasingly mandated by research funding authorities and competition from an increasing number of online journals. We have recently revised our own open access policies and lowered our price to $2,500 for our colleagues who need or desire Apen Access for their work. The best protection against any of these threats will be to maintain a journal of the highest quality, of which radiation oncologists can be proud, and to which they are always drawn. The Red Journal has traditionally had that reputation, and we must fight to maintain it. The first phase of the revolution is over, but a revolution never sleeps. There will be many small evolutions in format and style as we gain experience and as you feel more comfortable giving us advice. We plan to participate in the Elsevier “Journal of the Future” project, which looks to greatly enhance the online features of the Red Journal, making them more than just a collection of PDF files. We have started, and will expand, podcasts online. This began with interviews with the authors of the American Society for Radiation Oncology 2012 plenary session presentations, but is moving to include deeper interviews surrounding the highlighted work in each issue. Other challenges for the future include the issue of Open Access, which is increasingly mandated by research funding authorities and competition from an increasing number of online journals. We have recently revised our own open access policies and lowered our price to $2,500 for our colleagues who need or desire Apen Access for their work. The best protection against any of these threats will be to maintain a journal of the highest quality, of which radiation oncologists can be proud, and to which they are always drawn. The Red Journal has traditionally had that reputation, and we must fight to maintain it.