Year: 2012
Type: article
Abstract: Every activity needs a strategy—and publishing is no exception to the rule. When the current editorial team had the privilege to manage the flagship of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the European Heart Journal, in 2009, an initial and ambitious strategy was implemented.1 The strategy included (i) the nomination of deputy and associate editors from around the world (‘going global’); (ii) the creation of the ESC Journal Family with manuscript transfer (‘l'union fait la force’); (iii) improved readability of the journal with the introduction of CardioPulse, invited reviews, and editorials with high quality illustrations (‘reading must be fun’); (iv) shorter turnaround time for manuscripts of first decision (currently 22 days) and expansion of the FASTTRACK expedited review process to both the ESC Hotline Sessions and basic science papers (‘fast and innovative’); and (v) introduction of novel electronic features (i.e. iPad and iPhone versions, and new media features, i.e. My Cardio Interview of hotline presenters, among others; ‘modern and young’ (Table 1). New features introduced in the European Heart Journal 2009–2011 and as of 2012 aEffective as of 2013. New features introduced in the European Heart Journal 2009–2011 and as of 2012 aEffective as of 2013. Thanks to the help of our editors, editorial board members, and numerous reviewers, as well as the continued support of the board of the ESC, the major aims of the initial strategy were accomplished. Indeed, the journal has received an increasing number of manuscripts (with 3800 submissions expected this year), transferred a growing number of suitable papers to the specialty journals (currently ∼500 per year), published a large number of Hotline papers presented at the ESC Annual Congress, the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, or the American College of Cardiology, and is present at national and specialty congresses with its ‘Best of the EHJ Sessions’. Furthermore, its revamped homepage is widely visited, papers and guidelines are downloaded in large numbers, and My Cardio Interview videos have been visited by several thousands of viewers.2 Last, but not least, we have received highly encouraging comments from our readership and a consistent increase in impact factor (IF), which is now 10.5 (Figure 1). Growth of the European Heart Journal over time: manuscript submissions (A) as well as the impact factor (B) markedly increased over time. (Data from Oxford University Press 2012.) In 1980, the European Heart Journal started as a stand-alone publication under the leadership of Desmond Julian,3 with a modest number of submissions and no IF. Under the leadership of four succeeding editors, the journal made it to centre stage in its field.4 As a consequence, the number of submitted manuscripts increased markedly (Figure 1) and the acceptance rate has declined to ∼11% currently. Since space constraints resulted in the need to decline several high-quality manuscripts, the creation of a family of ESC journals became a necessity. This is particularly relevant, since many papers rejected by the European Heart Journal have value for colleagues working in more specialized fields of cardiovascular medicine. Fortunately, as early as 1999, the ESC had introduced two specialty journals, i.e. Europace, focusing on arrhythmias and pacing, and the European Journal of Heart Failure. Over the years, an increasing number of specialty journals were created (Figure 2). Most recently, EuroIntervention and the European Heart Journal Acute Cardiac Care have joined the ESC Journal Family. Furthermore, the European Journal of Echocardiography expanded its scope as of this year under its new name European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging. Finally, the European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation changed its name to European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. Today, the ESC Journal Family comprises nine journals encompassing the entire spectrum of cardiovascular medicine (Figure 2). Importantly, all but the newest one of these journals have received respectable impact factors, in particular, Cardiovascular Research with 6.064 and the European Journal of Heart Failure with 4.895.5 The ESC Journal Family with current impact factors and editors. The principle of manuscript transfer is to offer excellent, but more specialized papers that are less suitable for publication in the main journal to a specialty journal editor for consideration based on the reviews obtained by the European Heart Journal. Thus, only manuscripts that have been reviewed (currently 74% of the submissions) are eligible for transfer, provided they have received favourable reviews and are not considered by the main journal. The specialty editors must then decide within 48 h whether or not they would be willing to reconsider a revised version of the manuscript based on the initial reviews. Obviously, no final commitment is made, but the authors have the opportunity to resubmit a revised version of their manuscripts quickly, and hopefully publish their work faster than with any other option. Since 2009, the European Heart Journal has transferred almost 1800 manuscripts (Figure 3) to different members of the ESC Journal Family. This transfer option was considered by the specialty editors in >1000 cases. Overall, this translated into a 50% acceptance rate by the editors. Of these offers, 80% were accepted by the authors and later resubmitted in a revised version to the specialty journal. Eventually, 75% of transferred manuscripts were accepted and published. Of note, the acceptance by the authors depended to a large extent on the IF of the specialty journal that was offered for resubmission (Figure 3). Indeed, the author acceptance rate was the highest with the European Journal of Heart Failure (80%; IF 4.896), lower with the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology (50%; IF 2.634), and the lowest with Europace (40%; IF: 1.980), and the European Journal of Echocardiography (45%; IF 2.371). Manuscript transfer with the latest member of the ESC Journal Family, the European Heart Journal Acute Cardiac Care began only in March of this year, and 26 manuscripts have been transferred thus far. Since the European Heart Journal has received very few manuscripts on cardiovascular nursing, only one paper could be transferred to this specialty journal (IF 1.711) until now. The editors hope that through that process, they can provide an additional number of highquality papers for our readers. Indeed, the citations of transferred papers have been higher than those directly submitted to specialty journals.5,6 Overview of manuscript transfer within the ESC Journal Family since 2009. Given are the data for each of the specialty journals and the acceptance rates of editors and authors. (Data from Oxford University Press 2012.) We are living in the internet era and, hence, more and more readers search for information on the net rather that in textbooks or printed products. A survey among our readership revealed that the preference towards electronic versus paper products is age dependent (Table 2). Thus, sooner or later, the majority of our readers will prefer receiving the European Heart Journal and other scientific publications of their interest preferably on their iPad, iPhone, or laptop. In response to these needs, most products are now available electronically as an App through a specific link (http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/esc-journals/id506513718?mt=8). Hopefully, these upgrades to electronic media sourcing will apply to all members of the ESC Journal Family in the near future. Results of a survey among readers of the European Heart Journal regarding preferences for an electronic versus paper version Results of a survey among readers of the European Heart Journal regarding preferences for an electronic versus paper version At the ESC Annual Congress in Munich this year, participants had the opportunity to choose between either an electronic version only or—at a higher rate—a paper and electronic version of the European Heart Journal. It was interesting to see that <1% of subscribers chose print only – further confirmation of the trend towards paperless reading among cardiologists as well. The increasing use of the ESC journal platform rather than paper versions opened up many opportunities for new features such as interactive case reports (already introduced in collaboration with the ESC education committee), the image bank, as well as incisive video interviews with key opinion leaders (My Cardio Interview) and possibly Twitter links in the future which will be increasingly important for citations of scientific journals.7 Traditionally, profit-driven publishing companies disseminate scientific articles worldwide. Their income is derived mainly from subscription fees from individuals and institutions, and from advertisements. The authors who actually generate the content of their products as well as most editors and all reviewers perform their work on a voluntary basis. Indeed, in most journals, authors must pay for colour illlustrations and, in some instances, even for the amount of printed pages; additionally, they must once and forever transfer the copyrights of their work to the publisher. Access to the published manuscripts is granted only to those who have paid their annual fees, while those who have not subscribed to the journal must pay for every individual article they wish to read. Hence, it is no surprise that some of the major players in the business such as Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, and Springer, among others, are highly profitable. This business model, however, has come under scrutiny, ever since open access publishing became available. Open access journals such as the Public Library of Science (PLoS) charge authors for the publication of their work, but make manuscripts immediately available online, free of charge. Many have argued that scientific results, particularly those that are supported by governmental institutions or charities, such as the NIH, the EU, the Welcome Trust, or national research agencies and heart foundations should become immediately available free of charge and should not be subject to profit by commercial companies. Indeed, the British government is apparently considering making online publishing mandatory for scientific journals published in Great Britain, and similar discussions are scheduled in the German parliament. While there are many pros and cons related to this issue, restricted access to scientific information is certainly a major criticism of the current business model. A compromise might be to make articles freely available some time after initial publication (for instance, after 1 year). The European Heart Journal currently selects two articles in each issue that are openly accessible (‘Editor's Choice’), and free access to the iPad version has also been granted for an initial period of 6 months. The ESC publications committee and the ESC Board have so far opted against any further steps. While free access may at first seem attractive for readers, it incurs substantially increased publishing costs for authors. Open access may also make it more difficult financially to maintain highquality products since publishers have a genuine interest in publishing as many papers as possible. In any case, electronic publishing will change the way business is done; on the one hand, the costs of printing and mailing are markedly reduced; yet, on the other hand, the income of journals will also decline as subscription fees will decrease under these conditions. Of course, the European Heart Journal continues to participate in the Open Oxford platform which allows individual authors to choose to have their works published open access if they desire to share publishing costs. This gives authors greater flexibility, which is an important priority for us. The European Heart Journal has consolidated its position as No. 3 among cardiovascular journals worldwide. Initially, the journal was published quarterly and later twice monthly. Since all premier cardiology journals are published weekly, the European Heart Journal will adopt the same publishing frequency as of January 2013. This strategy has several advantages such as increased visibility and more space for educational products such as review articles, current opinions, and editorials, as well as ‘Cardiovascular Flashlights’. Additionally, publication on a weekly basis will also slightly reduce time for print publication of submitted papers. Eventually, it will also increase the IF and, in the long run, put the European Heart Journal on a par with Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The increasing costs of going weekly will be compensated for by an increasing number of subscribers opting for the electronic version only. With an acceptance rate of 11%, manuscript selection has become quite a challenge for the editors of the European Heart Journal. How to select the most novel, interesting, and important papers? The peer review process is still considered the gold standard in scientific publishing, and the European Heart Journal has followed this practice ever since its existence. But is it really the right thing to do? Commonly, we tend to date the advent of the peer review process, i.e. the peer assessment of submitted manuscripts, to the 1752 Royal Society of London's instalment of a ‘Committee on Papers’ to oversee the selection and acceptance of submissions to its journal, Philosophical Transactions.8–10 The advantages of the peer review system were obvious from the start: in contrast to previous practice, the deciding body was no longer a sole person, i.e. the editor, who may or may not have been familiar with the field covered by the manuscripts or may have even written the paper himself. Rather, from then on the review was conducted by experts in a particular field—initially members of the editorial office—and later, particularly after the Second World War, external reviewers as well. The peer review system predicates that peers are impartial, just, and honest in their assessment of the quality of a given manuscript and that they provide constructive criticism for those seriously considered for publication, but they are also expected to recommend rejection of those of inappropriate quality. Scientists themselves rely on peers, i.e. respected and experienced colleagues, to discuss their findings with before making them available to the public at large. Niels Bohr's correspondence with Heisenberg, Einstein, Pauli, and other titans of quantum mechanics, for instance, is a prominent example.11 Likewise, most of today's scientists rely on advice from colleagues before submitting their work. Does the peer review system live up to these expectations? Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of the Lancet, once said: ‘Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.’12 Is it really that bad? As outlined previously,13 no one is perfect; and reviewers and editors are not perfect either. Certainly, most editors try their best to follow the principles of good publishing practice,2,14,15 and most medical and scientific societies have published rules of proper scientific conduct, among them the ESC16 and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors,17 but this is not enough. We cannot just rely on Churchill's quote that ‘democracy is the worst form of government, but better than any other’ – and relax. With the review process as such, there are several potential dangers: first and foremost, the expert may not really be an expert. Obviously, it is the duty of the editor to select competent reviewers familiar with the but with the increasing number of papers and journals, this is not to A of reviewers of all ESC journals, which is currently under may this and that tend to the may be biased, i.e. the findings may challenge or or may have similar findings and may be to the findings of in to publish the may have a against the may be a who to provide a Additionally, or may have in publishing or a given the may be the right but or may not have the time to perform a review. The first and are by experienced editors, while the is more difficult to But these are we have data on the quality of the peer review The of the peer review has been through the of submissions to the Journal of in While this is a lower impact journal, the number of submissions is and the may not be for the cardiovascular the are still (i) The peer review process in high impact articles and lower impact (ii) the between individual reviewers, however, is (iii) editors on the of and (iv) the of the right manuscripts to be improved with a greater number of >1000 submitted to the Annual Congress of the ESC and of acceptance and future publication followed for at the on basic those on at and those with a were most to be these factors from those publication which included and The citations was a Of note, the publication rate of accepted was only of rejected were published. Furthermore, among published those accepted at the ESC Congress received higher rates than rejected can we from these The peer review system is less than we thus Churchill's for our and We certainly should on these results, there are for the editors must be more the of reviewers, and the quality and of their reviews, as well as potential and must be on an annual basis and new reviewers have to be to with the of cardiovascular medicine. editors should rely on rather than two reviewers since this to increase the of the selection In response to the European Heart Journal has a of reviewers in an to within the review In our such a system works well. the and potential with previous publications should be before acceptance system that is now in in many editorial the by the European Heart Journal. This more objective assessment of the and, in of Finally, editors could the manuscripts Indeed, the findings of i.e. that publication, is a While it is that papers from institutions are of higher quality than those from other institutions, cannot be Furthermore, the that is also a of publication is Of note, in that there were no in acceptance of at the is a the rate of publication of authors was lower with their Furthermore, work in that there might also be In response to these the editors of the European Heart Journal considered review to those opting for it would it be Indeed, would a process with of a and version of the manuscripts will be more difficult to however, since this not only the with authors and but also the and of the research is frequently further such as we have as well as the would have to be Thus, it is that reviewers would be to the submitting particularly search and for the better considering these is really Does it make the review process The available Indeed, in a of and manuscript review quality as on a by editors and authors not It that citations and may still since this has not been in it that reviewers to the of the submitting authors not the reviews to for the work to for such a the other hand, currently the of reviewers is to the authors. In the age of a frequently issue is whether or not and comments should be or whether they should be made public after the review As outlined the of reviewers, which is by most journals, more honest reviews, since the is from any by a author and is in a position to make open in review. Indeed, as revealed in a survey by the Editor-in-Chief of Cardiovascular Research only of the reviewers would still be willing to help in the of manuscript if were to be Thus, journals can not such a The of whether the review should be made available to the readers as an online is this certainly is a as space no longer a it would be difficult for the to follow the of the reviewers on several versions of a Thus, if such a system would also have to make all versions of a manuscript available as well. When manuscripts based on their and editors must be increasingly of scientific use a less the of the work are the data to the principle that all data have been obtained as in the and with proper The is by a which is by all journals for all papers seriously considered for that the European Heart Journal has a deputy editor who at these with a team of expert This is increasingly particularly in research and as well as of of must be editors and of Obviously, this is very however, the increase in for in years, particularly in high impact reviewers and editors should be of Indeed, data and of research to be more than In a of survey that of scientists to have and up to other research such as data that not and in response to from or the other hand, widely available can easily in and and i.e. While scientific publishing is less than it has an high in It can certainly be further and, with highly and editors and reviewers, the current editorial team of the European Heart Journal is to that very into the future. those who may be a no of will
Source: European Heart Journal
Institution: Zurich Heart House
Language: English
Subfield: History and Philosophy of Science
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $5,922
OpenAlex ID: W2129058926