ISI Journal Citation Reports Research Articles

On Impact, Again... My Farewell Editorial

To paraphrase the late Jerry Garcia, "it's been a minute," and that certainly dates me as to my generation, eh? I started my journey in 2007 with SIGMIS and its publication, The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, and that is now over 15 years ago. I had grand aspirations for the journal at the time: at top, to get our review process online (we did that in the first year of my first term by joining Editorial Manager) and secondly, to get us included in the ISI Journal Citation Reports survey for production of a Journal Impact Factor (that took the rest of the first editorial term).

Insufficient transparency of statistical reporting in preclinical research: a scoping review

Non-transparent statistical reporting contributes to the reproducibility crisis in life sciences, despite guidelines and educational articles regularly published. Envisioning more effective measures for ensuring transparency requires the detailed monitoring of incomplete reporting in the literature. In this study, a systematic approach was used to sample 16 periodicals from the ISI Journal Citation Report database and to collect 233 preclinical articles (including both in vitro and animal research) from online journal content published in 2019. Statistical items related to the use of location tests were quantified. Results revealed that a large proportion of articles insufficiently describe tests (median 44.8%, IQR [33.3–62.5%], k = 16 journals), software (31%, IQR [22.3–39.6%]) or sample sizes (44.2%, IQR [35.7–55.4%]). The results further point at contradictory information as a component of poor reporting (18.3%, IQR [6.79–26.7%]). No detectable correlation was found between journal impact factor and the quality of statistical reporting of any studied item. The under-representation of open-source software (4.50% of articles) suggests that the provision of code should remain restricted to articles that use such packages. Since mounting evidence indicates that transparency is key for reproducible science, this work highlights the need for a more rigorous enforcement of existing guidelines.

Can an Article Processing Charge Reach the Number of Impact Factor 3.825?

Dental implants and their role continue increasing not only in oral surgery/periodontics but also in fibula jaw surgery.2 So, the critically important dental implants sections in oral and maxillofacial surgery journals are growing similar to publications focused clearly on implants. One of them is Clinical Oral Implants Research (COIR), which is a ‘hybrid’ journal (contains both, toll and open access articles)3 and official publication of the European Association for Osseointegration published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.4 Being launched in December 1990 (Niklaus P. Lang is a founding editor) as quarterly journal, it continues developing nearly full last 30 years. From 1997 it increased frequency to 6 issues per year and from 2008 started circulate 12 issues per year.5, 6 SCImago Journal & Country Rank put COIR at first place among 47 journals in category “Oral Surgery.”7 According to ISI Journal Citation Reports Ranking in 2018 the journal holds fifth position among 90 publications in category “Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine” and fourteenth place among 80 journals in category “Engineering, Biomedical.”4A journal`s 2018 impact factor (IF) is at a very prestigious mark and reached 3.825.4 And it`s very interesting that article processing charge (APC) in August 2019 is also very close to the number of journal`s IF, being at level of USD 3,800 (Ta b l e).8 So, in that case, such a high APC can be named as ‘price of prestige.’ There is ongoing debate among publishers about the level of APC.9, 10 And we know that some journals have APC even at the level of USD 6,000, excluding tax.11 But, can the APC can be as high as COIR has? Our opinion is yes and the example of COIR proved that. As high APC will give a publisher a wide range of possibilities: to appoint the honorary salaries for editors/reviewers, to spent more income for advertising, growing projects (journal club, podcasts, etc.) inside the journal, organizing awards with stipends for young generations of authors, thus moving the specialties forward.

Access to public information: a scientometric study of legal versus voluntary transparency in the public sector

The aim of this study is to identify, synthesise and evaluate the current state of research into transparency in the public sector, with respect to the period 2005–2014, in order to provide a critical overview of published trends in this field and to identify future areas of interest. Specifically, we focus on the questions of mandatory and voluntary transparency that arouse most interest among researchers, institutions and journals in this field, with particular attention to the methodological aspects of the studies considered. To achieve these aims, various scientometric approaches are applied to articles included in the 2014 edition of the ISI Journal Citation Reports database for the research areas “Public Administration”, “Political Science” and “Information and Library Science”. During the past ten years the number of studies published in this field has increased considerably, particularly as regards voluntary transparency.

Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study

ObjectiveSystematic reviews (SRs) often poorly report key information, thereby diminishing their usefulness. Previous studies evaluated published SRs and determined that they failed to meet explicit criteria or characteristics. The Preferred...

Citation Classics in Patient Engagement Research: An Analysis of the 50 Most Cited Articles

Background: Patient engagement offers a promising pathway toward improved population health, better-quality care, and greater cost efficiency. The objective of the current study is to identify and analyze the characteristics of the 50 most frequently cited articles in patient engagement journals. Methods: The ISI Journal Citation Reports: Science Edition 2014 database was used to determine the most frequently cited published articles in Dec 2016. The most cited 50 articles were selected and assessed according to the published journal, origin of institutions, publication year, impact factor, topic, and type of study. Results: The 50 selected articles were published in 19 journals, the majority of which originated from the UK. The most common study design was quantitative study and reviews. The improvement of health care services quality and the construction of engagement model were the top two topics. And 2013 is the most published year receiving the most citations. Conclusions: Our findings provide a historical perspective on the scientific progress of patient engagement and allow for recognition of important developments and limitations in this field.

Ireland's contribution to urology and nephrology research in the new millennium: a bibliometric analysis.

Bibliometrics is the statistical analysis of written publications. Bibliometric analyses have been performed across a range of biomedical disciplines. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analysis of Irish urology and nephrology research and to analyse how this compares internationally. We performed a retrospective bibliometric analysis of the top 20 ranking journals in the field of "Urology and Nephrology" based on their 5years impact factor, as obtained from the ISI Journal Citation Report database over the 15-year study period, 2000-2015. Utilising the Pubmed database, a search phrase was constructed using country of affiliation, year of publication and journal title. The abstracts of the Irish publications identified were analysed for their institution of origin, article theme and content. A total of 67,740 article abstracts were analysed over the 15years study period. As anticipated, the USA accounted for the largest number of publications by a country [28,206 (41.64% of all articles)]. Ireland contributed 347 articles in total (0.51% of all articles); however, ranking according to population per million was 13th worldwide. Ireland's contribution to urology and nephrology research was highest in the BJUI-British Journal of Urology International [76 articles (21.90% of Irish total)]. We believe this study to be the largest bibliometric analysis in the field of urology and nephrology internationally. This study provides a novel overview of the current Irish urology- and nephrology-related research, and examines how our results compare within the international community.

Renewed Energy for 2015

Renewed Energy for 2015

The International Polymer World and Industry: Advances and Recent Developments

The International Polymer World and Industry: Advances and Recent Developments

How variable are the journal impact measures?

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to examine the variability of the impact factor (IF) and additional metrics in biomedical journals to provide some clues to the reliability of journal citation indicators.Design/methodology/approach– Having used ISI Journal Citation Reports, from 2005 to 2011, the authors extracted 62 subject categories related to biomedical sciences. The category lists and citation profile for each journal were then downloaded and extracted. Coefficient of variation was applied to estimate the overall variability of the journal citation indicators.Findings– Total citation indicators for 3,411 journals were extracted and examined. The overall variability of IFs and other journal citation measures in basic, clinical or translational, open access or subscription journals decreased while the quality and prestige of those journals developed. Interestingly, journal citation measures produced dissimilar variability trends and thus highlighted the importance of using multiple instead of just one measure in evaluating the performance and influence of biomedical journals. Eigenfactor™, Article's Influence and Cited Half Life proposed as more reliable indicators.Originality/value– The relative variability of the journal citation measures in biomedical journals would decrease with a development in the impact and quality of journals. Eigenfactor™ and Cited Half Life are suggested as more reliable measures indicating few changes during the study period and across different impact level journals. These findings will be useful for librarians, researchers and decision makers who need to use citation measures as evaluative tools.

Editorial 30(3)

<p>In this editorial we take the opportunity provided by the release of the 2014 Google Scholar Journal Metrics to explain the various journal metrics, how they are calculated and how AJET rates against other Educational Technology journals. Journal metrics broadly refer to the various measures of quality or impact of a journal, largely based on the number of articles published in the journal itself and citations in other journals to articles published in the journal. As well as being used to rank the journals themselves, metrics are often used as a proxy measure of the quality of articles in a particular journal, and thus individual researchers’ publication lists. The three most well known journal metric sources are the Thomson Routers Journal Citation Reports (previously known as the ISI Journal Citation Reports), Google Scholar Metrics, and Scopus Journal Analyser. Each of these sources includes a number of metrics or indices that use specific algorithms drawing on data within their own databases of journals, articles and citations. This editorial explains the key metrics used by these sources.</p>

A new era for Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki.

Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki (JBR) replaced the Scientific Annals of the School of Biology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki called BIOS in 2004. In these 10 years, more than 850 authors originating from 54 countries have published 280 articles. JBR has been indexed in ISI Journal Citation Reports© (Thomson Reuters), since 2008 (current Impact Factor 0.62). Until the end of 2013, JBR was published by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. With the rapidly changing environment of scientific publishing, it was decided that JBR should be transformed into a modern, open access journal. For this transition, the Editors of JBR along with the Administration of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki decided to become partners with one of the world leaders in open access publishing, BioMed Central. Starting from May 2014 (Volume 21), JBR articles will be published by BioMed Central and freely available online at http://www.jbiolres.com/ [1]. All the back volumes of JBR (Volumes 1–20) are also freely available at http://www.jbr.gr/ [2], which will remain active for archiving purposes. Dissemination of scientific results is the milestone of science and the vehicle for transporting knowledge produced in universities and other research institutes to the community. Open access publishing ensures high visibility of content, gives authors copyright of their work, and articles are indexed in freely accessible full-text repositories, in compliance with the policies of numerous funding organizations/bodies [3–7]. Also, open access fulfills the USA demand for government-funded research papers to be made freely available within one year of publication [5] and the requirement posed by the Wellcome Trust and Research Councils UK for government-funded research results to be published open access [6, 7]. For all the above reasons, we were enthusiastic to move JBR to publish under a “gold” open access model, which provides immediate open access to all articles published in the journal. Another issue that the Editors of JBR consider of great importance is research and publication ethics. This includes data fabrication/falsification/misinterpretation, disclosing of relevant personal or financial interests, plagiarism, and protection of sensitive and confidential data. BioMed Central is a member of, and subscribes to the principles of, COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) [8], and provides Editors with access to CrossCheck software for plagiarism detection. In addition, BioMed Central assures the fast publication of accepted manuscripts in its final citation, and also gives authors the opportunity to publish large datasets, video and large numbers of color illustrations for no additional charge [9]. JBR carries the valuable (and variable) lessons learned during its first ten years of life over to a fresh new start brimming with new challenges and responsibilities, as well as opportunities. With an enriched set of article types (Research, Reviews, Short Reports, Hypotheses, Letters to the Editor, Commentaries and Book Reviews), the journal now provides additional podia through which authors may communicate their research and ideas in more flexible and exciting ways. Reflecting the broad expertise of the Editorial Board and the philosophy of its Editors, JBR continues on the same track of a multidisciplinary scope within biology. We hope that the broad coverage also incites authors to submit interesting works of an interdisciplinary/integrative nature. Within this general biological scope, the Editors of the journal will publish series devoted to popular topics such as evolutionary biology and molecular ecology. JBR is run by practicing scientists, who are recognized academics that continue to publish and serve as reviewers for other journals. Therefore, authors and JBR staff (across all levels of responsibility, from the Editor-in-Chief to the Editorial Board) share common interests. Neither subsidiaries nor any scientific society endorse JBR. Within this structure the question of novelty in scientific research is fundamental. The criteria of novelty have been hotly debated over the years [10], more so nowadays as some feel that the open access publishing model threatens to redefine them. JBR does not intend to be defiant of nor enticed by the metric of Impact Factor. As scientists judge scientists, it is useful to keep in mind that scientific progress is mainly incremental and occasionally interrupted by leaps of novelty. JBR now enters a new exciting period of wider exposure and rigorous assessment. The Editors of JBR intend to follow the same principles that guided them to date in keeping on a tangent line with scientific progress and ethics of publishing.

From little things: How it all started

When Stephen Lock retired from editing the British Medical Journal in 1991 after a quarter of a century with the journal, I was just in my third year of editing Emergency Medicine Australasia (or Emergency Medicine as it was then). I remember thinking how long that period of Lock’s journal editing was, and realising how diametrically opposed were the requirements of being an emergency physician (rapid decision-making, short concentrated attention span, time periods measured in minutes to hours) and those of a journal editor (strategic long-range planning, judgements considered over months to years and time periods measured in years to decades). I was an unabashed fan of Stephen’s and of his successor Richard Smith, and the wonderful, eclectic, human medical journal they put together over all those years. Balancing journalism and science became their journal’s hallmark, presenting a human and sometimes humorous face to medicine, ensuring that art, music, history and personal reflection were given equal stand

15 Aniversario Scielo

El pasado mes de Octubre se celebró en Sao Paulo (Brasil) el 15º aniversario de la Red Scielo (Scientifi c Electronic Library Online) y como plato fuerte de esta reunión, se consumó el acuerdo entre FAPESP Fundación Científi ca Brasileña promotora de la Red SciELO y Thomson Reuters, con la inclusión de la colección SciELO en la plataforma Web of Knowledge (WoK), creándose el llamado Scielo Citation Index, que va a operar como base de datos separado en la plataforma WoK, pero alojado en ella. Tal como ya adelantamos el año pasado, en esta misma sección, este acuerdo abre nuevos horizontes en la misión de SciELO por mejorar la visibilidad de la ciencia hecha en Latinoamérica, España y Portugal. La importancia de este acuerdo viene determinada porque Thomson Reuters facilita el acceso a las revistas más importantes e infl uyentes del mundo, independientemente del formato en el que se publican y elabora el ISI Journal Citation Reports on the Web (JCR® Web) que proporciona un método sistemático y objetivo de evaluar críticamente las revistas de investigación más importantes del mundo. Ofrece una perspectiva única para la evaluación y comparación, ya que acumula y tabula el número de citas y artículos de prácticamente todas las especialidades de las ciencias, tecnología y ciencias sociales, elaborando el famoso Factor de Impacto. Actualmente, no hay ninguna revista española de enfermería, ni revistas internacionales de enfermería relacionadas con el cuidado renal (Renal Care, Nephrology Nursing Journal) incluidas en el JCR.

A bibliometric analysis of toxicology research productivity in Middle Eastern Arab countries during a 10-year period (2003–2012)

BackgroundBibliometric studies are increasingly being used for research assessment by involving the application of statistical methods to scientific publications to obtain the bibliographics for each country. The main objective of this study was to analyse the research productivity originating from 13 Middle Eastern Arab (MEA) countries with articles published in toxicology journals.MethodsData from January 1, 2003 till December 31, 2012 were searched for documents with specific words in the toxicology field as a “source title” in any one of the 13 MEA countries. Research productivity was evaluated based on a methodology developed and used in other bibliometric studies. Research productivity was adjusted to the national population and nominal gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.ResultsDocuments (n = 1,240) were retrieved from 73 international peer-reviewed toxicology journals. The h-index of the retrieved documents was 39. Of the 73 journal titles, 52 (69.9%) have their IF listed in the ISI Journal Citation Reports 2012; 198 documents (16.0%) were published in journals that had no official IF. After adjusting for economy and population power, Egypt (193.6), Palestine (18.1), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) (13.0), and Jordan (11.5) had the highest research productivity. Countries with large economies, such as the Kuwait, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Oman, tended to rank relatively low after adjustment of GDP. The total number of citations at the time of data analysis (August 4, 2013) was 10,991, with a median (interquartile range) of 4 (1–11). MEA collaborated more with countries in the MEA regions (16.7%), especially KSA, Egypt, and UAE, followed by Europe (14.4%), especially with the United Kingdom and Germany.ConclusionsThe present data show a promising rise and a good start for toxicology research activity in toxicology journals in the Arab world. Research output is low in some countries, which can be improved by investing in more international and national collaborative research projects in the field of toxicology.

Provision of supplementary materials in library and information science scholarly journals

Purpose – This study seeks to analyse the policies of library and information science (LIS) journals regarding the publication of supplementary materials, the number of journals and articles that include this feature, the kind of supplementary materials published with regard to their function in the article, the formats employed and the access provided to readers. Design/methodology/approach – The study analysed the instructions for authors of LIS journals indexed in the ISI Journal Citation Reports, as well as the supplementary materials attached to the articles published in their 2011 online volumes. Findings – Large publishers are more likely to have a policy regarding the publication of supplementary materials, and policies are usually homogeneous across all the journals of a given publisher. Most policies state the acceptance of supplementary materials, and even journals without a policy also publish supplementary materials. The majority of supplementary materials provided in LIS articles are extende...

Review of the complications associated with treatment of oropharyngeal cancer: a guide for the dental practitioner.

Oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) is the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Focus on risk factors, improved diagnostic methods and effective management strategies have made it possible to successfully treat OPC. However, the 5-year survival rate has not improved for several years due to multiple treatment complications, tissue morbidity, loss of function, and diminished quality of life. Survivors are faced with complications like oral mucositis, hyposalivation, osteoradionecrosis, tissue fibrosis, morbidity from jaw resection, disfigurement, and loss of function that further diminish quality of life. The aim of this review is to highlight major complications associated with treatment of OPC via a literature search and review of available options for identification and management of these complications. Relevant publications on oral complications of OPC therapy were thoroughly reviewed from the literature published between the years 1988 and 2012. We evaluated reported incidence, prevalence, and risk factors for oral complications of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for OPC. The authors conducted an electronic search using English language databases, namely PubMed Plus, Medline (Pre-Medline and Medline), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (evidence-based medicine), Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source, A ccessScience, Embase, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews Multifile, Google Scholar, ISI Journal Citation Reports, and Ovid Multi-Database. We identified the most common complications associated with the treatment of oral cancers. Based on the information gathered, there is evidence that survival of OPC extends beyond eradication of the diseased tissue. Understanding the potential treatment complications and utilizing available resources to prevent and minimize them are important. Caring for OPC survivors should be a multidisciplinary team approach involving the dentist, oncologist, internist, and social worker to improve the currently stagnant 5-year survival rate of OPC. More emphasis on improved quality of life after elimination of the cancer will ultimately improve OPC survivorship.

Turning the pages of Obesity

The January 2013 issue of Obesity inaugurates a new chapter in the history of the Journal as several changes are occurring simultaneously. First, our new publisher, Wiley, with Jo Wixon as Senior Editor, brings a commitment to publish our work efficiently and to market it to achieve a wider readership. Wiley will improve the reader experience with an anywhere article format to meet the screen demands of newer devices. The Wiley Online Library homepage will improve branding and highlight our content. We can build virtual issues around chosen themes and promote the journal across readership in Endocrinology, Nutrition and Dietetics, Cardiology, Surgery, and others. Second, we hope to bring new energy as Editor-in-Chief (Eric Ravussin) and Associate Editor-in-Chief (Donna Ryan). We have mapped out an ambitious strategy to bring Obesity to the next tier, to be a leading specialty journal sought after because of its quality and its speed from submission to publication. This is the official journal of The Obesity Society and we want Society members to be proud of Obesity. We will increase readership and citations. We want all submitting authors to consider that we have given a careful and speedy review and that the time to publication is as short as possible. We want Obesity to be the first journal that an author considers for publishing a discovery of interest to the obesity research community. Society members should scan Obesity every month for the latest developments in the field. We are aided in our ambitious goals by some experienced Associate Editors who are staying on (David Allison, Marc Reitman, and Jacqueline Stephens) and a cadre of young and enthusiastic Associate Editors (David Cummings, Vishwa Dixit, Gary Foster, Paul Franks, Bret Goodpaster, Ruth Loos, Christopher Morrison, Leanne Redman, Melinda Sothern, and Holly Wyatt). Among the changes are a simplification of section headings to just four (Obesity Biology and Integrated Physiology; Clinical Trials: Behavior, Pharmacotherapy, Devices, Surgery; Pediatric Obesity; and Epidemiology/Genetics). We are limiting the word count for original articles to 3,500 words, but we will have more Invited Reviews (5,000 words) and Perspectives (1,000 words). We are designating a format, Brief Cutting-Edge Reports, for excellent and novel findings that can be reported in 1,500 words. We will work with authors to produce more press releases so as to increase the impact of the Journal in the press. Obesity has made remarkable progress since its founding almost two decades ago as Obesity Research, under Editor-in-Chief George Bray. Able leadership, including Xavier Pi Sunyer, Barbara Corkey, and Richard Bergman, has pushed the journal to an Impact Factor of 4.284 (ISI Journal Citation Reports Ranking 2011). Obesity ranks 9/72 among Nutrition and Dietetics journals and 31/121 of Endocrine and Metabolism journals. So, the Editors-in-Chief stand on the shoulders of some talented and hardworking predecessors in the ambition to expand the scope of the journal. With our Managing Editor, Hedy Ross, and Editorial Assistants, Deborah Rice and Lorrie Brescia, we have already begun to implement some procedures to reduce a large backlog and to speed time to decision for submissions and to publication for accepted papers. We are turning the pages on the “old” journal and are ready to embark on a new chapter for Obesity. As with starting any new chapter, we have learned from what came before and are anxious to see what unfolds on the new pages. However, of course, we need your expert help by submitting your best work to Obesity.

Report of the Council for 2011

Report of the Council for 2011

Editorial

Ecological Monographs is the Society's journal for comprehensive papers that integrate and synthesize research findings with the broader scientific literature. We publish original research articles, concepts and syntheses papers, and reviews. All of these types of papers establish new benchmarks in the field, define directions for future research, and contribute to fundamental understanding of ecological principles. Many of the papers explicitly transcend the boundaries between “basic” and “applied” ecology and derive principles for ecological management in its broadest sense. By many measures, 2011 was a great year for the journal. A total of 130 manuscripts were submitted to Ecological Monographs. More than half of the manuscripts that we received were sent out for review—as authors have become more familiar with the new (since 2009) scope of the journal, fewer submissions are being returned without undergoing external peer review—and average time from submission to a first decision for these reviewed manuscripts was 72 days. The overall acceptance rate has increased from 22% in 2010 to 29% in 2011, but Ecological Monographs is still one of the most selective journals in the field. The journal's impact factor increased nearly 20% in 2010 and continues to rank among the top 10 ecological journals. According to the ISI Journal Citation Reports, the 2010 impact factor of Ecological Monographs was 5.938 (ranked 8th among ecological journals), its five-year impact factor was 8.83 (a 6% increase from 2010, and 4th-ranked among ecological journals), and the cited half-life of more than ten years continues to show the lasting value of its papers to the ecological sciences. We have also virtually eliminated our backlog of manuscripts to be published, and most articles are scheduled for publication immediately following acceptance. Nearly every author is taking advantage of our on-line-before-print option, which assigns papers a citable digital object identifier (doi) within days of final acceptance and makes the final version available immediately thereafter to subscribers and the scientific news media. The new requirement (as of January 1, 2011) that authors archive data associated with papers published in Ecological Monographs has not slowed the pace of submissions or of publication, and we have successfully integrated data archiving methods with the Dryad International Data Repository. In 2012, we join the other ESA journals in implementing new guidelines for submitting and archiving computer code used for novel statistical analyses (see http://esapubs.org/preparation.htm#Sta). Together, the availability of data and code provides greater transparency for our methods and ensures that analyses presented in Ecological Monographs can be replicated by others. The end of 2011 also marks the end of Aaron Ellison's first three-year term as Editor-in-Chief (EIC). This benchmark was accompanied by a self-assessment of progress at the journal and a formal review of the EIC by the ESA Publications Committee, chaired by Joshua Schimel. The overall review was positive, and Ellison has been reappointed to a second three-year term by the ESA Governing Board. At the same time, both the self-assessment and the committee's review identified three key challenges for the journal: how to reduce the number of manuscripts rejected following review only by the EIC and/or a subject-matter editor; how to appropriately handle the broad topical diversity of manuscripts submitted to the journal; and how to better inform authors about the scope of the journal. These three challenges are interrelated. The scope of the journal is clearly defined on the website of the ESA's journals, but many authors still submit manuscripts that are little more than “long” Ecology papers, and these types of papers are the ones most likely to be rejected following editorial review. The topical diversity is handled by the increasingly large editorial boards of Ecology and Ecological Applications, adhoc subject-matter editors, and of course, hundreds of peer-reviewers, but certain topical areas, notably ecosystem science writ large, are still underrepresented, both in submissions and in manuscripts sent out for review. To decrease the likelihood that manuscripts focused on ecosystem dynamics are not being slighted in the editorial process, and to provide additional oversight of the overall editorial review process of manuscripts submitted to Ecological Monographs, Aimée Classen has been appointed Associate Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Manuscripts submitted to Ecological Monographs are complex, integrative, and lengthy, and they demand substantial time and effort from reviewers, editors, and the professional staff in the Ithaca Publications Office. As always, we remain most grateful to the volunteer subject-matter editors on the boards of both Ecology and Ecological Applications and the community of reviewers who continue to read, thoughtfully review, and edit these manuscripts conscientiously and in a reasonable amount of time. The dedication of our editors and reviewers are more than matched by the talented professional staff who work assiduously with authors to move their manuscripts through to publication as quickly as possible.