Manuscript Length Research Articles

A Century of JMCQ Legal Issues in Media: Scholarly Commitment to Free Press, Free Speech, and More

This systematic review of more than 300 Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly (JMCQ) articles on media law since 1924 documents what a vital scholarly outlet the journal has been and continues to be for research on freedom of the press and speech. While defamation law remains a popular topic, journalism and mass communication scholars have expanded their focus to a wider range of media law issues, including privacy, copyright, student speech, journalistic privilege, free press v. fair trial, advertising, and issues involving other media. JMCQ has been refreshingly open to international and comparative law, moving away from a U.S.-centric approach to media freedom. The review highlights a decline in the number of media law articles published in recent years, possibly due to competition from alternative journals, manuscript length limitations, and the APA-style requirement. Nevertheless, media law scholarship remains essential, offering invaluable insights into the evolving legal landscape of media.

Making Meaning Matter: an Editor's Perspective on Publishing Qualitative Research.

The term qualitative research refers to a family of primarily non-numeric methods for describing, analyzing, and interpreting the lived experiences of people in their day to day lives. Originally developed to study social problems such as poverty, juvenile delinquency, and race relations, qualitative research methods have been used in the health sciences since the 1960s to better understand the socialization of medical professionals and the culture of medical education and practice. More recently, qualitative research has been employed in health services research to address and improve the quality and safety of care. While quantitative researchers generally ask "what" or "how many" questions, qualitative researchers generally ask, "why" or "how"? Publishing qualitative research comes with a number of challenges, among them, manuscript length, unfamiliarity of reviewers with qualitative traditions, and sample sizes that, by design, are difficult to generalize from. In addition, while there is general agreement about the quality of evidence and types of research designs used in quantitative studies, the same is not yet the case for qualitative and mixed methods research although a variety of useful guidelines have recently appeared. From the perspective of journal editors, we raise and offer guidance on three important questions: (1) Is the study under review suitable for this journal? (2) What is the rationale for using qualitative methods to carry out the research? (3) What are editors/reviewers looking for in a qualitative submission? In unpacking the third question, we describe common strategies editors use and challenges that we have encountered in the abstract, background, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions sections of qualitative submissions we and our colleagues have reviewed.

Tiffan response to Reynolds, J. B. 2022. Correspondence regarding: Tiffan, K. F. and N. J. Eller 2022. Backpack electrofishing does not contribute to external signs of gas bubble trauma in sculpins. Aquaculture, Fish and Fisheries, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/aff2.81

Aquaculture, Fish and FisheriesEarly View REPLYOpen Access Tiffan response to Reynolds, J. B. 2022. Correspondence regarding: Tiffan, K. F. and N. J. Eller 2022. Backpack electrofishing does not contribute to external signs of gas bubble trauma in sculpins. Aquaculture, Fish and Fisheries, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/aff2.81 First published: 07 April 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/aff2.110AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Reynolds is correct in pointing out that electrofishing could theoretically cause electrolysis that would cause the disassociation of water molecules into their gaseous constituents that could possibly contribute to GBT. GBT is caused by the total gas pressure in the water that comprises mainly dissolved nitrogen and oxygen. While past studies have shown that at times oxygen partial pressure can contribute to GBT, evidence suggests that nitrogen is the primary factor that would not be influenced by the electrolysis described above (see the review by Weitcamp and Katz, 1980). Regardless, as Reynolds noted, in our study none of the control fish tested showed signs of GBT after receiving the electroshock treatment. Furthermore, none of the test fish that showed no signs of GBT prior to treatment ever showed signs of GBT following treatment. This further supports for our conclusion that electrofishing does not contribute to external signs of GBT. Reynolds suggests that the study should have focused on treating fish free from TDG (i.e., unsaturated water) to determine electroshock effects on GBT development. I question why a study like that would be done in the absence of any data that would suggest such an effect given the lack of a plausible physiological mechanism. Since the advent of electrofishing, I am unaware of any reports of GBT being observed in fishes collected from waters with unsaturated TDG. As far as the lack of detailed methods, it was suggested that the original manuscript be shortened to the journal's “Short Communication” format. This necessitated reducing the manuscript length by over 50%, and much of the original detail in the Methods section was removed. The original full-length manuscript is included as an appendix in a report that can be found at https://www.cbfish.org/Document.mvc/Viewer/P197308. Open Research PEER REVIEW The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1002/aff2.110 DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT There are no data associated with this response. REFERENCE Weitkamp, D.E. & Katz, M. (1980) A review of dissolved gas supersaturation literature. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 109, 659– 70 Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue ReferencesRelatedInformation

Amphibians in Zootaxa: 20 years documenting the global diversity of frogs, salamanders, and caecilians

Zootaxa is a mega-journal that since its inception, 20 years ago, has contributed to the documentation of the planet’s biodiversity. Its role concerning terrestrial vertebrates has been crucial especially for amphibians, which are the most threatened class of vertebrates. As current editors of the Amphibia section, we reviewed the state of knowledge of taxonomic publications on amphibians over the last two decades (from 2001 to 2020). Our review reveals that 2,533 frogs, 259 salamanders, and 55 caecilians have been named in these 20 years, mainly in the tropical regions of South America, Asia, and Africa. More than half (57%) of these species descriptions were published in only 10 journals. At least 827 species of the new amphibians (29% of the total) were described in Zootaxa. This mega-journal has served also as a place of publication for monographs and systematic reviews, in addition to short articles documenting the vocalizations of anurans and the morphology of embryos and larvae. Its efficient evaluation process, the freedom of manuscript length, including full-color figures, and free of cost for the authors, has made Zootaxa a favorite for amphibian researchers. In an era of accelerating rates of biodiversity loss, documenting, describing, naming, and proposing evolutionary scenarios for species is, more than ever, an urgent task.

Contributions to ophiology in Zootaxa 20012020: patterns and trends.

There are currently 3,900 recognized, extant snake species belonging to 529 genera globally (Uetz et al. 2021; this study), making snakes one of the most diverse major groups of squamates. Of the 665 currently recognized species that were described between 2001 and 2020 (a ~17% increase in total species), ~34% of these (226 species) were described in Zootaxa. This number does not include species resurrected from synonymy. The other ~66% (439) species were described in 105 other journals, bulletins or books (Fig.1a). Overall, the number of new snake species described every year is gradually increasing, and 40% of the new species described since 2011 were published in Zootaxa. Following Zootaxa, the second ranked journal, with 37 described species since 2001, is Herpetologica (Fig. 2). Anecdotally, the choice of Zootaxa as a publication outlet for new species descriptions by most authors is based on speed of publication post-acceptance, publication free of charge, relatively unconstrained number of papers published per year, relatively unconstrained manuscript length, expert section editors and reviewers, and consolidated scientometric parameters.

Double‐gate line‐tunneling field‐effect transistor devices for superior analog performance

SummaryThis paper presents a double‐gate line‐tunneling field‐effect transistor (DGLTFET) device optimized for superior analog performance. DGLTFET has thrice the on currents Ion, at least one order lower off currents I o f f, twice the transconductance gm, at least two orders higher output resistance ro, and at least two orders higher overall intrinsic gain gmro than the equivalent metal‐oxide‐semiconductor field‐effect transistor (MOSFET) having the same width at the same technology node. The proposed device, being a double‐gate (DG) structure, exhibits extremely high vertical fields which ensures that line‐tunneling dominates over the point‐tunneling by several orders. This eliminates the notorious “hump” or the “kink” effects observed in conventional LTFET characteristics, which are detrimental for analog applications. In this work, we have optimized the DGLTFET device by changing critical parameters like the epi‐layer thickness and its doping concentration, which have serious influence on the line‐tunneling behavior. Optimization of the critical parameters for enhanced line‐tunneling leads to improved analog performance parameters like gm and ro, and finally, superior analog circuits. The performance of the DGLTFET was benchmarked with the equivalent MOSFET in fundamental analog VLSI circuits, namely, CS amplifier (both resistive and cascode loads), current mirror (both single‐stage and cascode configurations), and a two‐stage op‐amp. This paper shows that the DGLTFET CS amplifier has a gain‐BW product or unity‐gain BW fT of 15 GHz, while that of MOSFET CS amplifier with the same bias current is 10 GHz. The DGLTFET current mirror has at least three orders of magnitude higher ro than the corresponding MOSFET current mirror. Similarly, the common‐mode rejection ratio (CMRR) of the DGLTFET op‐amp is 57 dB compared to the CMRR of 33.5 dB of the equivalent design in standard 45‐nm complementary metal‐oxide semiconductor (CMOS) technology. The 45‐nm library is the lowest industry‐standard technology node currently available free for academic licenses in the public domain; hence, the benchmarking for validation was carried out at 45 nm. However, the claims/investigations made in this work are also valid for lower technologies, and related results are excluded in this report keeping the manuscript length in mind.

ViewpointRuminations on peer review in the time of social change

PurposeThis viewpoint article looks at several approaches to peer review that become detrimental to the scholarly process and disadvantage diverse voices in the scholarly conversation.Design/methodology/approachAs a viewpoint article, the piece relies on published research and the author's personal experience as an author and a journal editor.FindingsThe article focuses on the manuscript structure; manuscript length expectations; and several immediately obvious effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the scholarly communication process.Originality/valueThe article addresses the aforementioned aspects of peer review with a goal of contemplating their cumulative impact on the state of diversity in scholarly communication and suggests possible ways of rethinking the situation.

Factors affecting the citations of papers in tribology journals

The citations count is flawed but it still the most common way of measuring the academic impact used by scholarly journals (Impact Factor), individual researchers (h-index) and funding agencies (a proxy for quality of research). Individual papers should attract citations depending upon the importance and usefulness of the results presented. However, large enough data sets reveal that there are parameters independent of individual papers' quality that can determine an average citation rate. Here, we examine papers (4756 in total) published in six selected tribology journals in a six-year window between January 2010 and December 2015. Citations were retrieved from the Web of Science and compared with their (1) manuscript length, (2) number of authors, (3) number of affiliated institutions, (4) number of international co-authors, (5) number of cited references, (6) number of words in the title, and (7) mode of publication (open versus paid access). The results revealed that citations received by papers published in tribology journals are affected by all of these parameters. This is a significant finding for authors wishing to increase the impact of their research. This knowledge can be used effectively at the manuscript planning and writing stages to support scientific merit. We suggest that the significance of parameters not directly related to the quality of a scholarly paper will become more critical with the rise of alternative ways of measuring impact including novel generation of paper metrics (e.g., Eigenfactor, SJR), social mentions, and viral outreach.

Nomenclature for Kidney Function and Disease: Executive Summary and Glossary From a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Consensus Conference.

This article is being published in Kidney International Reports and reprinted concurrently in several journals. The articles cover identical concepts and wording but vary in minor stylistic and spelling changes, detail, and length of manuscript, in keeping with each journal's style. Any of these versions may be used in citing this article. Excerpts are adapted with permission of KDIGO and the International Society of Nephrology.

Modifications Needed: Additional Strategies to Transform DNP Projects into Publishable Manuscripts

Modifications Needed: Additional Strategies to Transform DNP Projects into Publishable Manuscripts

Bibliometric analysis of manuscript characteristics that influence citations: A comparison of ten major dermatology journals

BackgroundThe number of citations an article receives is a reassuring marker for its influence in the academic world. ObjectiveWe aimed to discover characteristics of dermatology articles that may impact their citation. MethodsThis cross-sectional study collected and analyzed articles published between January and June 2013 from ten highest impact dermatology journals. The study included manuscript characteristics i.e. the length of an article, the presence of visual aids, accessibility, originality, and clarity. Citation analysis statistics required multiple tools such as linear regression, point-biserial correlation, Spearman's rank-order correlation, and Kruskal–Wallis to determine the association between these study variables and the number of citations of articles. ResultsOf 748 articles included in our study, the number of citations ranged from 0 to 814 (median: 18), with weak positive correlations to the length of manuscript (word count: rs 0.3, p<0.001; pages: rs 0.3, p<0.001). Having a structured abstract (rpb −0.15, p<0.001) and increasing number of references (rs −0.26, p<0.001) showed a negative correlation. Studies originating in North America were associated with higher citations, followed by Europe and Asia (p<0.001). Review articles had a higher number of citations (p<0.001). ConclusionsWe found that the number of words and the number of pages within a dermatology manuscript had the strongest positive correlation for a higher citation count. The results of this study can benefit authors who may improve the citation of their articles by utilizing this bibliometric study when assembling their manuscript.

Instructions for Contributors

Instructions for Contributors Edward Finegan, Editor Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America encourages submission of manuscripts for articles treating any aspect of lexicography or areas of linguistic inquiry that relate to lexicography or the study of reference works in general as they bear on dictionary making. Within reason, length of manuscripts for regular articles is not a concern, and the editor is open to proposals to dedicate a section of the journal to a theme. Manuscripts for the section Reference Works in Progress are by invitation of the editor, but inquiries about that section and about forums or special issues of the journal itself are encouraged. Manuscripts can be submitted for consideration only in electronic form in MS Word; initial submissions must contain an abstract and several keywords. All article submissions are reviewed anonymously by two or more referees. Submissions for publication in the first issue of any year should be sent to editor Edward Finegan (finegan@usc.edu) before January 31st of that year, and for the second issue of the year before June 30th of that year. Reviews are overseen by reviews editor Traci Nagle and are by invitation only. Suggestions that Dictionaries should review particular books, online dictionaries, or websites are welcomed; write to Traci Nagle (tcnagle@indiana.edu). Submissions must NOT use special formatting or automatic styling for headings, titles, or other display elements. All headings should appear on their own line. Indicate primary-level headings in ALL CAPS. Indicate secondary-level headings with Sentence capitalization. Captions for figures and tables should be unstyled – formatting will be applied by the editors. [End Page 185] Because manuscripts are distributed to referees electronically for anonymous review, all indications of authorship should be removed from the text and from other identity-tracking markers, such as Properties and Track Changes. After review, submissions will be assigned one of three categories: accepted with revision (minor or major), revise and resubmit (a request for a complete rewrite of a promising paper), or reject. Authors are responsible for securing the rights for both print and electronic publication of any illustrations and other copyrighted material contained in their submission. If this obligation poses a financial or other hardship, consult the editor. Authors of accepted papers will be required to sign a publication agreement, a copy of which can be found on the DSNA website. Manuscripts should adhere to the specifications given at the journal's website (http://dictionarysociety.com/journal). [End Page 186] Copyright © 2020 Dictionary Society of North America

Burden, access, and disparities in kidney disease

This World Kidney Day 2019 article is being published in Kidney International and reprinted concurrently in several journals. The articles cover identical concepts and wording, but vary in minor stylistic and spelling changes, detail, and length of manuscript in keeping with each journal’s style. Any of these versions may be used in citing this article. Note that all authors contributed equally to the conception, preparation, and editing of the manuscript.

Exploring reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer\u2019s disease before and after PRISMA introduction

BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are distillation of current best available evidence, but are potentially prone to bias. The bias of SRs and MAs comes from sampling bias, selection bias and within study bias. So, their reporting quality is especially important as it may directly influence their utility for clinicians, nurses, patients and policy makers. The SRs and MAs on nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) have been increasingly published over the past decade, but the reporting quality of article has not been evaluated after the introduction of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) Statement.MethodsAccording to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we searched the databases including PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library from inception through October 16th 2018. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. The PRISMA checklist was adopted to evaluate reporting quality. Comparisons were made between studies published before (2001–2009) and after (2011–2018) its introduction.ResultsA total of 77 eligible articles, 18 (23.4%) were published before the PRISMA Statement and 59 (76.6%) were published afterwards. There was higher score after publication of the PRISMA Statement than before (20.83 ± 3.78 vs 17.11 ± 4.56, P < 0.05). There was an improvement in the following items after the PRISMA statement was released (P < 0.05): title (item 1, 50.0% vs 74.6%, OR = 3.10, 95CI%: 1.00–9.61), search (item8, 27.8% vs 57.6%,OR = 3.25, 95CI%: 1.14–9.28), study selection (item 9, 44.4% vs 81.4%,OR = 6.28, 95CI%: 1.93–20.37), Data collection process (item 10, 50.0% vs 76.3%,OR = 3.45, 95CI%:1.10–10.84), risk of bias in individual studies (item 12, 50.0% vs 83.1%, OR = 5.78, 95CI%:1.71–19.52), risk of bias across studies (item15, 5.6% vs 28.8%,OR = 3.60, 95CI%:1.04–12.43), study characteristics (item 18, 77.8% vs 98.3%, OR = 28.13, 95CI%:3.35-236.19), risk of bias with studies (item 19, 50.0% vs 83.1%, OR = 5.78, 95CI%:1.71-19.52), results in individual studies (item 20, 72.2% vs 94.9%, OR = 11.09, 95CI%:1.99–61.82), conclusions (item 26, 77.8% vs 98.3%, OR = 28.13, 95CI%:3.35–236.19). After controlling for the confounding factors, there were higher PRISMA score for systematic reviews including meta-analyses, protocol or registration, can’t answer of RCT, journal source of SCI (Science Citation Index), manuscript length > 13 page and funding support.ConclusionSince the publication of the PRISMA Statement, there has been an improvement in the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs on nursing interventions in patients with AD. More endorsement by journals of the report guideline for SRs/MAs may improve articles reporting quality, and the dissemination of reliable evidence to nurses. We recommend authors, readers, reviewers, and editors to become more acquainted with and to more strictly adhere to the PRISMA checklist.

The role of new adipokines in gestational diabetes mellitus pathogenesis.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition dur-ing pregnancy. Explanation of the GDM pathogenesis is important due to preventing gestational complications. During pregnancy there are significant changes in maternal metabolism. Many of these changes are influenced by different adi-pokines produced in the placenta and adipose tissue. The exact role of adipokines in the pathogenesis of GDM remains still unknown. Several adipokines have been analysed throughout gestation and their levels have been suggested as biomarkers of maternal-perinatal outcomes. Some of them have been postulated as significant in the pathogenesis of pregnancy complications like GDM. This report aims to review some of the recent topics of adipokine research that may be of particular importance in patho-physiology and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus. Because of manuscript length limitations, after thorough literature review and in view of the recent evidence, we focus on the one of the most well-known adipokine: adiponectin, and not so well-studied: nesfatin-1, chemerin, ghrelin, and CTRP 1.

Quality of Author Guidelines in Nursing Journals.

PurposeThe aims of this study were to (a) describe the information provided in author guidelines in nursing journals, (b) assess the completeness of this information, and (c) identify the extent and types of reporting guidelines used in nursing journals.DesignContent analysis of author guidelines for 245 nursing journals included in the Directory of Nursing Journals maintained at the International Academy of Nursing Editors website.MethodsUsing Research Electronic Data Capture, data on 19 criteria for completeness were extracted from published author guidelines. Additional details about journal requirements, such as allowed length of manuscripts and format for the abstract, were also recorded. Reliability was established by simultaneous review of 25 journals (10%) by the research assistant and a senior member of the research team.FindingsAuthor guidelines were easily accessible at journal websites or through links to download the information. A majority (73.5%) had completeness scores of 75% or higher; six journals had guidelines that were 100% complete. Half of the journals used the American Psychological Association reference style, and 26.3% used the American Medical Association style. Less than one fourth had stated requirements to use reporting guidelines such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA).ConclusionsAuthor guidelines for nursing journals are generally complete and informative. Although specific reporting guidelines such as CONSORT and PRISMA improve the accuracy and completeness of manuscripts on various types of studies, most nursing journals do not indicate use of these for manuscript preparation. Editors who want to improve their author guidelines should use the 19 criteria for completeness as a gauge for updating and revision.Clinical RelevanceNurses rely on the published literature to inform their practice and ensure that it is based on evidence. Guidelines for publishing in the scholarly literature assist clinicians and scholars to ensure that published articles are complete, current, concise, and accurate.

Journal of Composites Science: A New Journal for Composite Materials, Structures and Experiments

The Journal of Composites Science is a new, online, open access journal, which aims to focus on advanced technology and the development of composites and composite structures.[...]

Citations increase with manuscript length, author number, and references cited in ecology journals.

Most top impact factor ecology journals indicate a preference or requirement for short manuscripts; some state clearly defined word limits, whereas others indicate a preference for more concise papers. Yet evidence from a variety of academic fields indicates that within journals longer papers are both more positively reviewed by referees and more highly cited. We examine the relationship between citations received and manuscript length, number of authors, and number of references cited for papers published in 32 ecology journals between 2009 and 2012. We find that longer papers, those with more authors, and those that cite more references are cited more. Although paper length, author count, and references cited all positively covary, an increase in each independently predicts an increase in citations received, with estimated relationships positive for all the journals we examined. That all three variables covary positively with citations suggests that papers presenting more and a greater diversity of data and ideas are more impactful. We suggest that the imposition of arbitrary manuscript length limits discourages the publication of more impactful studies. We propose that journals abolish arbitrary word or page limits, avoid declining papers (or requiring shortening) on the basis of length alone (irrespective of content), and adopt the philosophy that papers should be as long as they need to be.

Education journals: Two decades of change and implications for the field

The authors sought to systematically examine patterns of change over time, as well as current variations, in educational journal specifications and publishing, including higher education. The 100 journals in this sample included research and practitioner venues across a range of subdomains and specializations. The authors gathered data for 3 points in time, at 10‐year intervals during a 20‐year period, from 1989–2009. They examined the following in detail: journal profiles for publishing characteristics, submission specifications for manuscript parameters, and full‐text published manuscripts for compliance with specifications. All were analyzed as point‐in‐time comparisons as well as trajectories of change over time. Journal profiles demonstrated patterns of increased centralization and digitization, inclusiveness of readership, increased frequency of issues, and increased length of articles. Key findings for manuscript parameter trends included increased specificity of detail, range of manuscript types and research designs accepted, and average manuscript length. In addition, journals have more explicitly specified elements previously left implicit, such as professional and ethical standards. Criteria for submission procedures and manuscript quality are consistent with university faculty performance standards for productivity and technological advancement. Findings carry implications for publishing, journal management, faculty work, and performance evaluation.

Celebrating 60 Years

As 2013 gets under way, on behalf of the staff at JHC, I would like to wish all our readers, authors, editors, and reviewers a Happy New Year with good health and success in your scientific endeavors. With Volume 61, Number 1, a special landmark has been reached—60 years of JHC in print. The first issue appeared in January 1953, and at the end of this editorial, the table of contents from that issue can be found. It makes interesting reading, not least for the fact that some distinguished scientists contributed to that first issue. The first Editor-in-Chief was Ralph D. Lillie, who remained in this position until 1964. Moreover, he was one of the founders of the journal and The Histochemical Society. In fact, Lillie had papers in each of the first three issues of 1953. In recognition of his many achievements, The Society established the Ralph D. Lillie Award for young scientists to travel and attend the annual meetings of The Histochemical Society. We can look back on 60 years of accomplishment and progress in JHC. Along the way, many landmark papers have been published, and many firsts in new techniques have been reported in our journal. We should also not forget the role that JHC played in recognizing the value of the highest quality images in articles. There is now a long tradition of excellence that we can all be proud of. Despite ever increasing competition in the cell biology field, JHC holds its own and continues to publish excellent science. It is of course the quality of submitted manuscripts as well as that of our reviewers and Editorial Board that underpin JHC’s success. Yet the publishing landscape has changed out of all recognition over the past 60 years, and over the past decade in particular. Open Access is with us and will not be going away. This has financial repercussions for many journals, including JHC and many other “Society” journals. There has been a proliferation of new journals offering OA, and it’s my prediction that many of those may not last 10 years, never mind another 60. JHC also offers an OA option, so for those with funding sources that require OA, this can be provided. Additionally, at JHC our publication costs are highly competitive, and particularly among our peer group. We have done away with color charges, an important move for a journal such as ours where high quality images continue to be key components of many articles that we publish. With generous provision for manuscript length and the number of images, I believe it makes JHC an attractive venue for the cell biology community. What about the next 60 years? It’s hard to predict the next 10 years in science publishing, but we can be sure that further changes are on the way. If the science publishing world continues to move in the direction of OA, as seems likely, then almost certainly online-only articles and journals will prevail. Print will go away, with the exception of the pdfs we download to our desktops. Will we still have a “cover” image if this happens? Some journals still keep with a cover, even though they are online only, and I can see the attraction. Many have commented that our covers are lively, varied, and interesting, and we are now in our third year of this feature. Our website has an archive of cover images. I very much like the idea that we can publicize an article with a contributing author’s image, and I know that many authors also appreciate seeing their work on the cover. One facet of our science will surely still survive the next decades. Much information on how cells and tissues function still travels to us on beams of light (or electrons). New techniques for visualizing molecules and real time imaging of molecular interactions, dynamics, and expression continue to be developed, but the microscope and imaging remain as constants. The first issue in January 1953 contains many micrographs, in black and white of course, and micrographs are plentiful in the current issue. This signals to me that there continues to be a role for JHC, reporting on new developments and insights into biological processes and disease, while the need for the journal to be nimble in response to the challenges of publishing will be ever more pressing. I am cautiously optimistic and hope that as readers and authors, you will continue to support us with manuscripts reporting on the latest developments in cell and tissue biology. Here’s to the next 60 years! Happy New Year! John R. Couchman Editor-in-Chief Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry, January 1953; 1 (1)