| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Editorial |
For almost 10 years I have had the honor to be the Editor-in-Chief of The American Journal of Pathology. This issue is the last under my editorship. James Madara, the new Editor-in-Chief, has in fact been on board since July, handling new submissions. Beginning with the January 2001 issue, Jim and his team will take over all of the editorial functions. This highly accomplished group will make the journal even better in the coming years. I wish Jim the very best and fully expect that he will be an outstanding Editor-in-Chief of the AJP.
Not that long ago, there was a relatively limited number of journals in the biomedical field, well recognized and long standing. Today, of course, the scene is completely different. Scientists and physicians are now confronted with thousands of publications, many of them established by commercial publishers without a clear mission or purpose. Add to these the ever-increasing number of subclones generated by the most prestigious journals and the start of the electronic publishing era, which provides exciting avenues for innovation but also anoints non-peer-reviewed material and makes possible the proliferation of ghost journals. The present situation offers interesting challenges, but is also fraught with pitfalls and uncertainties. It is pleasing to see that the AJP not only survives in these turbulent seas, but also thrives in them. There is little dispute today that the AJP is the premier journal in disease pathogenesis.
Originally titled The Journal of Medical Research, The American Journal of Pathology will celebrate 100 years of publication next year. The AJP not only has been able to "go with the flow" to grow, but, more importantly, has been at the forefront of scientific developments in pathology. Research in the mechanisms of disease has gone from morphology to molecular biology, passing through physiology, ultrastructure, and cell biology. The best current work, which the AJP has sought to publish, is not based on a single technique, but uses instead a sophisticated knowledge of morphology in conjunction with powerful techniques of cell and molecular biology. I fear, however, that in this time of rapid and spectacular scientific advances and blurred distinctions between disciplines, the place of pathology and pathologists is not assured. There is concern that pathology, which historically has been the basis for medicine, may be relegated to a secondary role. In this worst-case scenario, the cherished image of the pathologist as the guardian of medical knowledge becomes transformed into that of a specialized individual, highly skilled in an ancillary medical procedure. (In the experimental realm, pathologists might be confined to interpreting findings from transgenic and knockout mice for molecular biologists, who often refer to pathologists in rather quaint ways, eg, "my pathologist tells me that this lymph node is not normal . . . .") The optimistic view is that what we are and what we want to be are really up to us. If pathologists are to continue to be major contributors to medical progress, we need to be thoroughly familiar with scientific advances that now may be perceived as being outside of pathology. This emerging scientific knowledge needs to be incorporated into the education of pathologists as well as the practice of pathology.
In my view, the brightest future for pathology in what has been called the genomic or post-genomic era requires a strong linkage between the science of pathogenesis and diagnostic work. If the gap between these traditional branches of pathology widens (a not uncommon situation in many medical centers), I am afraid that a great opportunity will have been missed. We have much to contribute to medical knowledge and are in a unique position to do it. But our role will not come to us by default. Just the opposite is true: we must actively pursue it, so that pathology is considered as both the science of pathogenesis, on an equal footing with other basic sciences, and a diagnostic discipline that is complemented and strengthened by the new modalities of genomic analyses.
An indication of the vigorous pursuit of research in the cellular and molecular biology of disease is that in approximately 9 years, manuscript submissions to the AJP have increased from about 650 to more than 1,300 yearly. The improvement in overall quality and importance of the articles has also been noteworthy. Although we are the "American" Journal of Pathology, more than 40% of submissions and accepted papers originate from countries other than the United States and Canada, attesting to the universality of these endeavors. Interestingly, a cursory survey of papers submitted during part of last year revealed that only about 30% of the manuscripts originated in departments, institutions, or centers with the word "pathology" in their names. This may be interpreted in either of two opposite ways. The reassuring interpretation is that the science of pathogenesis is now pursued by a broad spectrum of scientists regardless of affiliation. Indeed, one of my original goals as Editor-in-Chief was to expand the reach of The American Journal of Pathology to the scientific community at large, beyond the boundaries of traditional pathology departments. However, the dark and unfortunate side of this curious statistic is that, perhaps because of a disconnect between research and diagnosis in pathology departments or as an unintended consequence of the newly expanded reach of research in disease mechanisms, pathogenesis research as reflected by articles published in the AJP might be perceived as not relevant to the practice of pathology. If this is indeed the case, there is much work ahead for the new AJP editorial team, which may need to redefine the AJP’s intended audience.
My blueprint for the AJP was that it needed to be the source for the best papers in cellular and molecular mechanisms of disease—we wanted the best, not the leftovers—and at the same time serve an educational purpose by advancing the scientific frontiers of the discipline. To accomplish these goals, the editorial policies had to be unbiased and fair and not controlled by a small "in group." At the same time, the AJP had to become fast and efficient in its handling of manuscripts and publication time. My sense is that, by and large, the Journal did meet these goals during the past 10 years. Credit for this achievement goes to the Senior and Associate Editors, to the Editorial Board members, and to the many reviewers who graciously provided manuscript evaluations. In no small part, the success of the journal is due to the superb performance of Priscilla Markwood, the Managing Editor, who was helped by a dedicated team of editorial assistants in Bethesda and Seattle. I am delighted that we have brought to the Editorial Board not only recognizable "big names," but also gifted scientists who may have been less well known but who have outstanding records in their young careers. They all have done an admirable job. I also continue to be amazed and gratified by the amount of time and care spent by the vast majority of our reviewers in the evaluation of manuscripts. Though we have also had a very small share of disappointments with some reviews, I hope we have learned how to avoid most of these experiences.
A journal that accepts only 25 to 30% of initial submissions is bound to create unhappiness among some authors. As an author myself, I certainly recognize both the difficulty and the inevitability of the situation. All I can say is that we have tried to be fair and unbiased, and have relied on the evaluations of two reviewers and an Associate Editor before making our final decision on a manuscript. Undoubtedly, mistakes were made; I wish to believe that they were honest and unintentional.
The joys and excitement of being Editor-in-Chief of a highly respected journal are, not too infrequently, tempered by some troublesome events. Overlapping publications from a single laboratory (leading to a lack of complete data in any single manuscript), the well known MPU syndrome (that is, the splitting of data into minimal publication units), the lack of appropriate disclosure of conflicts of interest, the apparently deliberate failure to acknowledge previous contributions by other laboratories, are all common issues in journal publishing these days. Needless to say, these unfortunate episodes ultimately detract from the quality of the science and diminish the credibility of the author. Editors can help prevent such problems, but the main responsibility lies with all of us in our capacity as contributors to the scientific literature.
Regardless of the minor tribulations of the job, being Editor-in-Chief of the Journal has been a privilege and an unequaled learning experience. Similarly, my brief stint as Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, the companion journal edited under the direction of Karen Kaul, has been greatly rewarding. I wish to thank all of you by paraphrasing the songwriter Woody Guthrie: "So long, it’s been good to know you."
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
