Where we’re going . . .

Abstract

EDITORIALWhere we’re going . . .Kim E. Barrett, Kim E. Barrett American Journal of Physiology: Cell Physiology February 1998, Volume 274 (43) , EditorPublished Online:01 Feb 1998https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.1998.274.2.C295MoreSectionsPDF (23 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInEmail It is a little over a year since I first wrote in these pages as the incoming Editor of theAmerican Journal of Physiology: Cell Physiology. A recent meeting with my Associate Editors, along with the Publications Manager/Executive Editor of the American Physiological Society (APS) journals, Brenda Rauner, prompts me to write again with an update on some new initiatives for the Journal. In addition, these are stimulating, yet somewhat unsettling times of change for the scientific publishing enterprise as a whole.AJP: Cell Physiology is not immune to these shifts, which will in turn mandate some changes to the way we approach the editorial business of the Journal and the standards we apply to the selection of papers for publication. In this brief editorial, therefore, I seek to provide some insight for the readership into the changes that we are facing, as well as to update you with some good news about the overall performance of the Journal.To turn first to discussing new initiatives, I should begin by mentioning the appointment of Arthur Mercurio from Harvard as a member of our team of Associate Editors. Art has broad expertise in several areas of cell physiology, with specific interests in the areas of cell-cell interactions, integrin signaling, and endothelial biology. He is firmly ensconced in his editorial role at this point, and I am hoping that his recruitment will encourage increased submissions on topics related to the broad area of vascular biology, a research focus that has traditionally been somewhat underrepresented inAJP: Cell Physiology. Art joins me and our continuing Associate Editors, Paul Insel and Tim Bigby from the University of California, San Diego, Kathy Morgan from the Boston Biomedical Research Institute, Kevin Foskett from the University of Pennsylvania, and Dennis Brown, also from Harvard, in a commitment to provide high-quality and timely reviews, decisions that are fair and balanced, and service as an advocate for authors and their work.At our recent meeting, we discussed several new directions in which we would like to take the Journal, particularly with respect to invited material. First, in addition to continuing our successful series of invited reviews, we have already begun to solicit shorter “Invited Commentaries” that will focus, in the main, on presenting balanced discussions of topics that may be the subject of controversy in the broad field of cell physiology. Similar short and focused review articles are also being sought on topics that may not be quite so controversial, but for which we can identify serial authors who may have complementary outlooks. We are hopeful that these supplements to our more traditional reviews will enliven the pages of the Journal and perhaps even spur some animated correspondence. Suggestions for topics to be highlighted in Invited Commentary articles will be welcomed at any time. Second, we have begun a series of articles entitled “Editorial Focus” that seek to highlight particularly exciting and far-reaching articles in a given issue. We will ensure that such Focus articles are prepared in a timely fashion, so that there is no delay imposed on publication of the original article. We feel that by choosing a subset of our published papers to highlight in this way, the prestige of the entire Journal is likely to increase. Finally, we are making some changes to the editorial process to place greater emphasis on choosing papers for publication on the basis of novelty and priority. I will return to this issue below.As noted above, there is good news to report regarding the overall editorial process at AJP: Cell Physiology. The most encouraging item is the significant progress that has been made in shortening the time that elapses between acceptance and publication. As of the September 1997 issue, the average time between acceptance and publication for a regular article had shrunk to 3.7 months, down from 5.4 months at the start of the year. Authors can do much to help us maintain this performance, particularly by supplying all items that are needed for publication (such as figures and diskettes) in a timely fashion and by returning proofs promptly. Within the limits imposed by a monthly publication schedule, we feel that we can now offer authors very competitive publication times. Much of the credit for this must be accorded to Laurie Chambers, the APS Production Manager, and the copy editors, who have worked tirelessly to eliminate a previous backlog of articles waiting to be published. I and my Associate Editors will do everything in our power to maintain the timeliness of the review process both prior to and after acceptance. In this regard, times to first decisions have also been maintained at a competitive level (an average of 32.6 days in all offices, including my own, with a range of 26–37.5 days), no doubt due, at least in part, to the extensive application of computerized manuscript tracking and electronic means of communication. The APS as a whole is beginning to explore further extension of electronic reviewing and dissemination of manuscripts by electronic means. It is likely that such measures will improve the timeliness of the review process still further before the end of my tenure as Editor.As noted at the beginning of this editorial, the scientific publishing enterprise is currently being buffeted by a large number of forces. The rapidity of developments is quite breathtaking but may also have implications for the viability of our journals. As of this writing, the full impact of electronic publication on journal revenues cannot yet be predicted; print subscriptions continue to decline overall at the rate of 3–5% a year, but, with the added value of online access included with print in 1998, hopefully this trend will be halted. Nevertheless, the Publications Committee of the APS has had the foresight to implement certain measures that should ensure the health of the enterprise at least through the turn of the century. The most significant of these from the standpoint of authors and readers is the fact that the journals, including AJP: Cell Physiology, will no longer be allowed to grow in an uncontrolled fashion. In 1998, all APS journals will be subject to a cap in the total number of pages published (albeit a generous one, and representing an increase from current levels). One simple way in which we can maintain page numbers is to encourage authors to submit succinct accounts of their work whenever possible. Thus you may be asked by the Editors and/or reviewers to consider shortening your papers if appropriate. However, these page caps have also prompted us to revisit and reaffirm our commitment to publishing truly groundbreaking papers that offer genuinely new insights into fundamental topics of cell physiology, broadly defined. The overall priority of a paper, based on these criteria, will be the dominant basis on which the decision to accept or reject will be made. This reaffirmation of the types of papers that we seek to publish means that some manuscripts, while technically sound, may no longer make the grade for acceptance if they are repetitive of fundamental principles established in other cell types or systems or if they represent only a modest or minor increment to the field. I trust you will agree, however, that this is a small price to pay for an overall increase in the quality of the Journal, in its continued vigor, and in its improved standing among the other major interdisciplinary biomedical journals. An increase in the competitiveness of the editorial process ultimately helps all authors of work published here.I hope that the changes we plan for the Journal in the coming months meet with your approval and enthusiasm. As stated before in these pages, I feel extremely fortunate to have been given the opportunity to contribute to the research enterprise by serving as the Editor ofAJP: Cell Physiology. I am honored by the responsibility I have been accorded. In that regard, I certainly seek your input regarding how I and my team of Associate Editors can do more to live up to our charge of bringing you the most exciting research papers and invited articles in the area of cell physiology and pathophysiology. Please do not hesitate to contact any of us at any time if you would like to make a suggestion, comment, or criticism.This article has no references to display. Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformationCited ByDiabetic CardiomyopathyMetabolic dysfunction in diabetic cardiomyopathy27 February 2013 | Heart Failure Reviews, Vol. 19, No. 1Glucose-induced cell signaling in the pathogenesis of diabetic cardiomyopathy21 February 2013 | Heart Failure Reviews, Vol. 19, No. 1Inhibition of Protein Kinase C–β by Ruboxistaurin Preserves Cardiac Function and Reduces Extracellular Matrix Production in Diabetic CardiomyopathyCirculation: Heart Failure, Vol. 2, No. 2The Role of Protein Kinase C in Diabetic RetinopathyThe Role of PKC Isozymes in Mediating Responses to EthanolRole of Troponin I Phosphorylation in Protein Kinase C-mediated Enhanced Contractile Performance of Rat MyocytesJournal of Biological Chemistry, Vol. 278, No. 36Glucose-Induced TGF-β1 and TGF-β Receptor-1 Expression in Vascular Smooth Muscle Cells Is Mediated by Protein Kinase C-αHypertension, Vol. 42, No. 3Mechanisms Underlying Contractile Dysfunction in Streptozotocin-Induced Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetic CardiomyopathyProtein Kinase C Signaling and Expression of the Diabetic Cardiac PhenotypeExaggerated coronary reactivity to endothelin-1 in diabetes: reversal with bosentanCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, Vol. 80, No. 10Myocardial Effects of Ethanol Consumption in the Rat With Streptozotocin-Induced DiabetesAlcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, Vol. 26, No. 8Small heat shock protein alteration provides a mechanism to reduce mesangial cell contractility in diabetes and oxidative stressKidney International, Vol. 57, No. 2 More from this issue > Volume 274Issue 2February 1998Pages C295-C296 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 1998 the American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.1998.274.2.C295PubMed29590923History Published online 1 February 1998 Published in print 1 February 1998 PDF download Metrics Downloaded 98 times