- Email: [email protected]
Confessions of an ex-Editor-in-Chief
p r i m a r y c a r e d i a b e t e s 4 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 127–128
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Primary Care Diabetes journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/pcd
Editorial
Confessions of an ex-Editor-in-Chief
When I accepted the challenge of being Editor-in-Chief of Primary Care Diabetes it was on the basis of a 2-year term of office. Those 2 years are now at an end and I’m delighted that the person taking over from me is Professor Jaakko Tuomilehto. Jaakko and I first met in 1983 at the Second WHO/IDF Cambridge Seminar on Diabetes Epidemiology. We were both members of the teaching faculty at that event and continued to contribute to that seminar series for some years. As a result of this contribution we have acquired a rich network of diabetes friends and colleagues throughout the world. The most challenging part of being Editor-in-Chief of this journal (and I’m sure of most others) has been keeping the contributions flowing through the system from submission, through the reviewing process to final copy. The reviewing process relies on the altruism of others – others who are busy people and who often, for good reason, I’m sure, are reluctant to accept invitations to review. I have to confess that, more often than not these days, I turn down invitations to review contributions to other journals. The only time I accept is when the subject matter is particularly pertinent to what I’m busy with at the time or when an opportunity presents, with the permission of the requesting editor, to engage a junior colleague in that process under my supervision. There is no formal apprenticeship in peer reviewing so the more often I can provide this supervision the better. A few months ago we made some changes designed to speed up this process. Most reviewers registered on the system now have their areas of interest recorded so that making appropriate choices of reviewers is much easier. When submissions have one or more reviewers suggested by the authors, these plus two or three from the bank make it more likely that at least two out of these four will commit themselves to the process. Delays in coming to a decision will, one hopes, be substantially reduced. As the journal matures I would like to see the “systematic review” becoming standard. As I explain to my students,
the term “systematic review” doesn’t just mean a review done systematically. It means a review carried out and reported according to internationally agreed standards. Cochrane has set standards to which we all should aspire. While not requiring the Cochrane “full monty”,1 we should require a clear statement of the question being addressed by the review, details of the search strategy employed, the quality criteria used and the numbers of articles identified, rejected and considered. Ben Goldacre (he of “Bad Science”2 fame) regards the systematic review as the most valuable recent contribution to science. I agree. Out there in the wider world we have a recent edition of the Lancet (June 26–July 2) devoted almost entirely to diabetes. On its cover is the statement “Medicine might be winning the battle of glucose control, but is losing the war against diabetes”. Articles in that issue span the spectrum of the link between dysglycaemia and cardiovascular disease, recently introduced therapies and the societal impact of diabetes and its consequences. Ninety-two million Chinese adults are now estimated to have diabetes. As David Whiting, epidemiologist at IDF has remarked – “For every person in the world with HIV there are there are now three people in China with diabetes” – a sobering thought. One particular contribution caught my eye – Nigel Unwin and colleagues’ comments on the social determinants of diabetes and the challenges of prevention. Their focus is on primary prevention and the developing world but the same emphasis on social determinants and health inequalities could be made for secondary prevention and developed countries. Who better to identify and work to reduce the impact of these determinants and health inequal-
1
For those unfamiliar with this term, “The Full Monty” was the title of a British film that appeared a few years ago and is well worth seeing. I’m told that the term “full monty” comes from the days when wool fleeces were exported to Europe from South America. The best came from Montevideo, Uruguay. The very best of the best were termed the “full monty in recognition of this. 2 N. Unwin, D. Whiting, G. Roglic, Social determinants of diabetes and challenges for prevention, Lancet 375 (2010), 2204–2205. 1751-9918/$ – see front matter © 2010 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pcd.2010.07.005
128
p r i m a r y c a r e d i a b e t e s 4 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 127–128
ities than those working in primary care? Our journal has an important part to play in this. I’m thrilled that Jaakko now has the helm. He has been amongst the first in the world to identify and advocate the use of evidence relating to primary prevention of diabetes. I wish him and the editorial team the very best of success!
Rhys Williams Swansea University, School of Medicine, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom E-mail address: [email protected] 15 July 2010 Available online 17 August 2010
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Primary Care Diabetes journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/pcd
Editorial
Confessions of an ex-Editor-in-Chief
When I accepted the challenge of being Editor-in-Chief of Primary Care Diabetes it was on the basis of a 2-year term of office. Those 2 years are now at an end and I’m delighted that the person taking over from me is Professor Jaakko Tuomilehto. Jaakko and I first met in 1983 at the Second WHO/IDF Cambridge Seminar on Diabetes Epidemiology. We were both members of the teaching faculty at that event and continued to contribute to that seminar series for some years. As a result of this contribution we have acquired a rich network of diabetes friends and colleagues throughout the world. The most challenging part of being Editor-in-Chief of this journal (and I’m sure of most others) has been keeping the contributions flowing through the system from submission, through the reviewing process to final copy. The reviewing process relies on the altruism of others – others who are busy people and who often, for good reason, I’m sure, are reluctant to accept invitations to review. I have to confess that, more often than not these days, I turn down invitations to review contributions to other journals. The only time I accept is when the subject matter is particularly pertinent to what I’m busy with at the time or when an opportunity presents, with the permission of the requesting editor, to engage a junior colleague in that process under my supervision. There is no formal apprenticeship in peer reviewing so the more often I can provide this supervision the better. A few months ago we made some changes designed to speed up this process. Most reviewers registered on the system now have their areas of interest recorded so that making appropriate choices of reviewers is much easier. When submissions have one or more reviewers suggested by the authors, these plus two or three from the bank make it more likely that at least two out of these four will commit themselves to the process. Delays in coming to a decision will, one hopes, be substantially reduced. As the journal matures I would like to see the “systematic review” becoming standard. As I explain to my students,
the term “systematic review” doesn’t just mean a review done systematically. It means a review carried out and reported according to internationally agreed standards. Cochrane has set standards to which we all should aspire. While not requiring the Cochrane “full monty”,1 we should require a clear statement of the question being addressed by the review, details of the search strategy employed, the quality criteria used and the numbers of articles identified, rejected and considered. Ben Goldacre (he of “Bad Science”2 fame) regards the systematic review as the most valuable recent contribution to science. I agree. Out there in the wider world we have a recent edition of the Lancet (June 26–July 2) devoted almost entirely to diabetes. On its cover is the statement “Medicine might be winning the battle of glucose control, but is losing the war against diabetes”. Articles in that issue span the spectrum of the link between dysglycaemia and cardiovascular disease, recently introduced therapies and the societal impact of diabetes and its consequences. Ninety-two million Chinese adults are now estimated to have diabetes. As David Whiting, epidemiologist at IDF has remarked – “For every person in the world with HIV there are there are now three people in China with diabetes” – a sobering thought. One particular contribution caught my eye – Nigel Unwin and colleagues’ comments on the social determinants of diabetes and the challenges of prevention. Their focus is on primary prevention and the developing world but the same emphasis on social determinants and health inequalities could be made for secondary prevention and developed countries. Who better to identify and work to reduce the impact of these determinants and health inequal-
1
For those unfamiliar with this term, “The Full Monty” was the title of a British film that appeared a few years ago and is well worth seeing. I’m told that the term “full monty” comes from the days when wool fleeces were exported to Europe from South America. The best came from Montevideo, Uruguay. The very best of the best were termed the “full monty in recognition of this. 2 N. Unwin, D. Whiting, G. Roglic, Social determinants of diabetes and challenges for prevention, Lancet 375 (2010), 2204–2205. 1751-9918/$ – see front matter © 2010 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pcd.2010.07.005
128
p r i m a r y c a r e d i a b e t e s 4 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 127–128
ities than those working in primary care? Our journal has an important part to play in this. I’m thrilled that Jaakko now has the helm. He has been amongst the first in the world to identify and advocate the use of evidence relating to primary prevention of diabetes. I wish him and the editorial team the very best of success!
Rhys Williams Swansea University, School of Medicine, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom E-mail address: [email protected] 15 July 2010 Available online 17 August 2010