- Email: [email protected]
Anniversary editorial
International Journal of Cardiology, 32 (1991) 125-130 0 1991 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. 0167-5273/91/$03.50
CARD10
125
01309
Anniversary Editorial Robert H. Anderson
’
and Michael Tynan *
’ Department of Paediatrics, National Heart and Lung Institute, Dor)ehouse Street, London. U.K.; 2 ELlelina Department of Paediatrics, Guy S Hospital, London, U.K. (Received
and accepted
This issue marks the beginning of the tenth year of publication of the International Journal of Cardiology. It was in 1981 that the old European Journal of Cardiology assumed its new title, under the editorship of Dr John Kastor of the University of Pennsylvania. With this change in title, the Journal was forced to reappraise its role in the overall scene of cardiological publishing. Previously, the European Journal had been perceived as a cosy journal, published in English but edited by the Dutch on behalf of Elsevier, their hometown publishing house. The demise of the European Journal at Elsevier reflected the inability to reach an agreement with the European Society of Cardiology, who wanted, not unreasonably, their own Journal. Since it did not prove possible to translate the existing European Journal of Cardiology into this role, the European Heart Journal was born and the Elsevier Journal sought wider pastures in its International guise. As John Kastor stated in his opening Editorial [l], the aims of both editor and publisher were threefold. First, to publish in the shortest possible time. Second, to reduce the cost for individual subscribers so as to be competitive with other top class journals. Third, to appoint a distinguished Board of Editors to collaborate in the review process, to prepare editorial content, and to advise on operational policies. From our view ten years down the line, these ambitions remain worthy. To a large extent, they have been fulfilled in the intervening time. Thus, both the International Journal and the European Heart Journal con-
10 April 1991)
tinue to flourish, and each has carved out its own area of influence. Having said that, it must be admitted that John Kastor’s initial task was a difficult one. He had to ensure the provision of sufficient material to fill the pages of the Journal, recognising that the new International Journal was unlikely to be high on the pecking order of those seeking outlets for publication of first class original material. Initially, therefore, he solicited reviews from acknowledged international experts, ensuring that he published first class and timely material, albeit often at second hand. At the same time, of course, he published all the original material he felt satisfied his high editorial standards. He recognised fully that the Journal would stand or fall on its ability to publish peer reviewed material of the highest possible quality: in his words to “accept and solicit material of greater merit and value” [l]. Only in this way would the trap be avoided of being “just another cardiology journal” [l]. As he said “You will judge how well we fulfil1 our goals”. Well, we’re still here, and another decade has passed! It must be said that his editorial policy was sufficiently successful that, soon, he was able to increase the number of issues in order for the Journal to appear monthly. Even more importantly, he ensured that it always appeared on time, so that readers knew when they could expect the next instalment of reading upon their desks. Despite this success, however, the Journal at that time had not truly become International.
126
It still represented a cosy and parochial Journal, albeit having transferred its roots across the Atlantic Ocean. In searching for ways to make the Journal truly International, encouraged by Elsevier, he proposed the establishment of European and Japanese Editorial Offices. Thus it was that we were approached to become European editors. W 3 took up our position at the start of Volume 3. As stated, we hoped to achieve the aim that “the Journal should be international in character and purpose as well as in name” [2]. We shared John’s views on the need for a Journal that was not hidebound by National boundaries. We also, chastened by our own experiences at the hands of chauvinistic reviewers, often from the United States of America, saw a need for more enlightened policies for peer review. We accepted willingly, therefore, the offer to become Associate European Editors, initially under the Chief Editorship of John Kastor. Then, midway through Volume 5, Chuichi Kawai was enlisted as Associate Editor to run the Japanese office [3]. By this time, however, John Kastor had become Chief of Medicine at the University of Maryland at Baltimore. The newly imposed administrative burden of the Department of Medicine overstretched the time available for John to edit the Journal, and we were asked to assume the role of Editors. Our preference was for each office to be self-sufficient and of equal importance [4]. For a while, therefore, the Journal was organised from London and Japan. Even the most xenophobic editor, nonetheless, recognises that any International Journal must have a strong base in the United States of America. We are by no means xenophobic, despite our comments concerning American reviewers, and both of us have particularly strong links in mainland America. But we wished to establish the best centre possible in the United States. We were delighted, therefore, that, after extensive searches and negotiations, Robert Frye and Ronald Vlietstra agreed to coordinate the American office from the Mayo Clinic [5]. Happily, this arrangement continues, albeit with Ron replaced by Bernard Gersh and Raymond Gibbons. The one further change at this time was that our sphere of influence in London was extended to encompass the
Rest of the World apart from the United States of America, Canada, and Japan. With this division of territories, we then set about ensuring that we provided an outlet for publication of all and any good material, irrespective of the standard of the English language in which it was initially written. We hoped that we, aided by our reviewers, would sort out the good work, ignoring the solecisms in which it might have been couched [6]. We are delighted to see that the European Heart Journal, prompted by its readers 171, now joins us in this aim [8]. From our editorial seat, we believe we have been successful in our endeavours over the eight years in which we have been involved with the Journal. We only have now to look at our list of contents in any issue to see that the Journal can live up to its International title. We carry many articles from the Indian subcontinent, from Central and South America, and from the Eastern States of Europe. The number of articles submitted from China is increasing all the time. We have also been privileged to publish many articles concerned with “Third World” problems, with series of articles on Chagas’ disease and on hypertension in Nigeria springing immediately to mind. As far as we can judge, aided by our referees, the standard of scientific material published in our pages is high. From our own “expert” stance as Paediatric Cardiologist and Morphologist, we certainly know that most of the papers published in our fields have been of the highest quality. While putting our emphasis on original material, we have not shirked the need to provide the forum for reviews, and, perhaps more importantly, for more iconoclastic opinions. In this latter area, we can cite the series of incisive reviews provided by Stephen Seely. Submitted by Seely, backed only by his B.Sc., and on headed paper from the University of Manchester, we had presumed these pieces came from the pen of a young scientific research worker striving to make his way in the Cardiological world. We were, to say the least, surprised to find that Stephen has passed his eightieth year and is still going strong. Indeed, in his latest exchange, he called us to task for not having reviewed his offering within six weeks!
127
We are sure that many of our other authors share his views in this respect, but we hope they will appreciate that it is not always easy to prise reports from the desks of busy reviewers, who often work on behalf of several journals. Once they establish themselves as rapid and efficient reviewers, their task is likely to increase markedly as they are bombarded by grateful editors. It is this interface between referee, author and editor that has been the most difficult one during our tenure to satisfy to the gratification of all. We presume that all authors, like ourselves, feel greatly chastened should they receive a rejection slip. It is hardly surprising if they hold the opinion that the referee has not understood their work. It is for this reason that we ask our own referees to justify fully their reasons for rejection. A short report stating “this work is terrible” is of little value. We also ask them to emphasize the publishable parts of any manuscript rather than rejecting it out of hand. How often have we seen scripts rejected by us as referees which are then published virtually unchanged in another Journal along with all the faults identified in our initial review? This may have been, in part, because we did not make ourselves clear in our review. More likely, it expresses the fact that most papers written nowadays will, eventually, be published somewhere. We view our task, therefore, as weeding out the faults and finding the good things in most of the work submitted to us. This does not mean that we publish everything. Our referees will often tell us that a work is fundamentally flawed. If this is the case, we look for evidence that they have identified the flaws and try to indicate to our authors how, if at all, the work can be remedied for eventual publication elsewhere. We reject it for consumption in the International Journal. This process is time-consuming. As the material submitted to us continues to expand, therefore, we have taken to using only one referee, but one in whom experience has shown we can trust. We have often found that it is the younger referees, about to embark on their own independent careers, who give the best and most thorough reviews. They do not have an axe to grind, and they tend to have more time to prepare their
reports. At the same time, we have identified a group of well-recognised international experts who work tirelessly in providing our excellent reviews, matching all the efforts of our younger colleagues. We try to reward most of our “regulars” by placing them upon our Editorial board, but some are not yet thus promoted. They will know who they are, and we thank them all. Our stance, therefore, is to recognise the rights of the author without ignoring those of the referee. Thus far we have had surprisingly few demarcation disputes. Wherever possible, we settle these in favour of the author. In this respect, we have found it immensely helpful to ask reviewers to forego their shield of anonymity when reviewing on our behalf. Some, though, continue to give excellent and unbiased reviews while preferring to retain their anonymity. We respect the views of these first class referees and continue to use them. Increasingly, however, our newer and younger referees are happy to have their names passed on to the author. We find that their reports are then much more constructive, in that they know that the author will know who was responsible for the damning comments. We have all played the game of “recognise the typeface”! Some styles of reviewing are so clear cut that the reviewer may just as well come into the open anyway. We ourselves prefer to state our identity at the outset, since we say nothing in our reviews that we would not repeat face to face to our authors. We believe this approach has increased markedly the standard of refereeing provided by our Journal. Wherever possible, we also try to forego anonymity when refereeing on behalf of other Journals. Unfortunately, this is not always possible. The British Heart Journal still sends us sheets emblazoned with “Referee - please do not sign this form”. We always sign it anyway! One of us requested in writing the ability to forego anonymity when reviewing on behalf of the European Heart Journal 191.This request was considered by the Editorial committee, who recognized the case but felt such an approach would tie the hands of their Editor [lo]. We do not agree with this. Frequently the work emanates from a young doctor who has put a great deal of effort into the study. He or she deserves to know that their
128
brainchild has been assessed by an accountable authority. We were not first to propose abandonment of anonymity. Bill Roberts made this suggestion when assuming the Editorial chair at the American Journal of Cardiology [ll-131, along with suggesting in “Instructions to Authors” that authors propose their own referees. From our own recent experience, however, it seems that this policy may have run its course. Not only was a recent paper of ours submitted to his Journal rejected after being sent to (in our eyes) a grossly biased reviewer, but the referee’s report was eventually published as an Editorial Review [14], despite us having argued forcibly, in correspondence with Roberts, against virtually every comment in the report. We recognise again the obvious right of the Editor to do as he (or she) sees fit! This experience makes nonsense, however, of the ‘right of the author’, and is a cautionary tale for all editors. And so we now enter our second decade. We believe that our Journal is readable, and we do our best as editors to ensure that the work appears in consistent and consumable form. We continue to follow John Kastor’s rule in forbidding all but the most essential abbreviations. Would that all authors would read this rule before submitting their manuscripts! We also discourage the use of alphanumeric categorisations. We have usually forgotten what “Group Ib” was as soon as we have turned over the page. We try as far as possible to follow Kastor’s dictum stated in his opening editorial “As a kindness to readers, if for no other reason, the Editor will look with favor on manuscripts in which the author has taken pity on his audience and has stated his case concisely”. In that light, we have perhaps already written too much in this Editorial. We cannot finish, however, without pointing out that, despite our best efforts, we published one paper which was subsequently shown to be questionable in terms of its handling of scientific material. Despite our continuing efforts, and those of our referees, we must, in the final analysis, rely largely upon the probity of those who submit material for us to review. At a rate of less than 0.1% ‘retractions’ for our pages, our trust is well placed. For this reason alone, all authors deserve our
respect. In the International Journal, we believe that they get it. It would also be most remiss if we did not close with a big “thank you” to the backroom people who really make the Journal work. Felicity Gil has worked untiringly in the London office over and above the call of duty. We are sure that Alice Baldwin is equally indispensable in the office at the Mayo Clinic. Margreet Tillema has guided all our hands from the Elsevier office in Amsterdam, ensuring timely and elegant publication. If the International Journal has been a success in its first decade, it is these ladies who deserve the lion’s share of the credit. Without their efforts, the Journal would not have appeared. We thank them, and we thank you, our readers. If you had not submitted manuscripts, we would not have survived. Keep them coming. Write to us. Tell us your grouses. We will publish all letters to the Editor that are not actionable! We are facilitators, not censors. Help us keep the Journal at the forefront of International Cardiology when we enter the twenty-first century.
European Editors, IJC
Robert H. Anderson Michael Tynan
References I Kastor JA. Editorial. Another cardiology journal? Int J Cardiol 1981;1:3-5. 2 Kastor JA. Editor’s and Publisher’s Note. Appointment of Associate Editors. Int J Cardiol 1983;3:1-2. 3 Kastor JA, Anderson RH, Tynan M. Editors’ and Publisher’s note. Appointment of Associate Editor. Int J Cardiol 1984;5:285. 4 Anderson RH, Kawai C, Tynan M. Moving on. Editorial. Int J Cardiol 1985;8:1-2. 5 Elsevier Science Publishers BV Biomedical Division. Publisher’s Note. Int J Cardiol 1985;9:1. 6 Anderson RH. Letter to the Editor. Eur Heart J 1991;12:471. 7 Schmaltz AA. Letter to the Editor. Eur Heart J 1990;11:1135-1136. 8 Kulbertus H. The editor’s reply. Eur Heart J 1991;12:471. Y Anderson RH. Letter to the Editor. Eur Heart J 1991;12:288. 10 Kulbertus HE. The Editor replies. Eur Heart J 1991;12:288. 11 Roberts WC. A few words from the Journal’s Second Editor. Am J Cardiol 1982;50 (JulyhA3.
129 12 Roberts WC. Reviewing manuscripts: occasionally a test of character. Am J Cardiol 198250 (November):A3. 13 Roberts WC. Yes in the AJC since June 1982. Am J Cardiol 1983:51:A9-10.
14 Van Praagh R, Van Praagh S. Atria1 isomerism in the heterotaxy with asplenia. or polysplenia, or normally formed spleen: an erroneous concept. Am J Cardiol 1990;66:1504-1506.
CARD10
125
01309
Anniversary Editorial Robert H. Anderson
’
and Michael Tynan *
’ Department of Paediatrics, National Heart and Lung Institute, Dor)ehouse Street, London. U.K.; 2 ELlelina Department of Paediatrics, Guy S Hospital, London, U.K. (Received
and accepted
This issue marks the beginning of the tenth year of publication of the International Journal of Cardiology. It was in 1981 that the old European Journal of Cardiology assumed its new title, under the editorship of Dr John Kastor of the University of Pennsylvania. With this change in title, the Journal was forced to reappraise its role in the overall scene of cardiological publishing. Previously, the European Journal had been perceived as a cosy journal, published in English but edited by the Dutch on behalf of Elsevier, their hometown publishing house. The demise of the European Journal at Elsevier reflected the inability to reach an agreement with the European Society of Cardiology, who wanted, not unreasonably, their own Journal. Since it did not prove possible to translate the existing European Journal of Cardiology into this role, the European Heart Journal was born and the Elsevier Journal sought wider pastures in its International guise. As John Kastor stated in his opening Editorial [l], the aims of both editor and publisher were threefold. First, to publish in the shortest possible time. Second, to reduce the cost for individual subscribers so as to be competitive with other top class journals. Third, to appoint a distinguished Board of Editors to collaborate in the review process, to prepare editorial content, and to advise on operational policies. From our view ten years down the line, these ambitions remain worthy. To a large extent, they have been fulfilled in the intervening time. Thus, both the International Journal and the European Heart Journal con-
10 April 1991)
tinue to flourish, and each has carved out its own area of influence. Having said that, it must be admitted that John Kastor’s initial task was a difficult one. He had to ensure the provision of sufficient material to fill the pages of the Journal, recognising that the new International Journal was unlikely to be high on the pecking order of those seeking outlets for publication of first class original material. Initially, therefore, he solicited reviews from acknowledged international experts, ensuring that he published first class and timely material, albeit often at second hand. At the same time, of course, he published all the original material he felt satisfied his high editorial standards. He recognised fully that the Journal would stand or fall on its ability to publish peer reviewed material of the highest possible quality: in his words to “accept and solicit material of greater merit and value” [l]. Only in this way would the trap be avoided of being “just another cardiology journal” [l]. As he said “You will judge how well we fulfil1 our goals”. Well, we’re still here, and another decade has passed! It must be said that his editorial policy was sufficiently successful that, soon, he was able to increase the number of issues in order for the Journal to appear monthly. Even more importantly, he ensured that it always appeared on time, so that readers knew when they could expect the next instalment of reading upon their desks. Despite this success, however, the Journal at that time had not truly become International.
126
It still represented a cosy and parochial Journal, albeit having transferred its roots across the Atlantic Ocean. In searching for ways to make the Journal truly International, encouraged by Elsevier, he proposed the establishment of European and Japanese Editorial Offices. Thus it was that we were approached to become European editors. W 3 took up our position at the start of Volume 3. As stated, we hoped to achieve the aim that “the Journal should be international in character and purpose as well as in name” [2]. We shared John’s views on the need for a Journal that was not hidebound by National boundaries. We also, chastened by our own experiences at the hands of chauvinistic reviewers, often from the United States of America, saw a need for more enlightened policies for peer review. We accepted willingly, therefore, the offer to become Associate European Editors, initially under the Chief Editorship of John Kastor. Then, midway through Volume 5, Chuichi Kawai was enlisted as Associate Editor to run the Japanese office [3]. By this time, however, John Kastor had become Chief of Medicine at the University of Maryland at Baltimore. The newly imposed administrative burden of the Department of Medicine overstretched the time available for John to edit the Journal, and we were asked to assume the role of Editors. Our preference was for each office to be self-sufficient and of equal importance [4]. For a while, therefore, the Journal was organised from London and Japan. Even the most xenophobic editor, nonetheless, recognises that any International Journal must have a strong base in the United States of America. We are by no means xenophobic, despite our comments concerning American reviewers, and both of us have particularly strong links in mainland America. But we wished to establish the best centre possible in the United States. We were delighted, therefore, that, after extensive searches and negotiations, Robert Frye and Ronald Vlietstra agreed to coordinate the American office from the Mayo Clinic [5]. Happily, this arrangement continues, albeit with Ron replaced by Bernard Gersh and Raymond Gibbons. The one further change at this time was that our sphere of influence in London was extended to encompass the
Rest of the World apart from the United States of America, Canada, and Japan. With this division of territories, we then set about ensuring that we provided an outlet for publication of all and any good material, irrespective of the standard of the English language in which it was initially written. We hoped that we, aided by our reviewers, would sort out the good work, ignoring the solecisms in which it might have been couched [6]. We are delighted to see that the European Heart Journal, prompted by its readers 171, now joins us in this aim [8]. From our editorial seat, we believe we have been successful in our endeavours over the eight years in which we have been involved with the Journal. We only have now to look at our list of contents in any issue to see that the Journal can live up to its International title. We carry many articles from the Indian subcontinent, from Central and South America, and from the Eastern States of Europe. The number of articles submitted from China is increasing all the time. We have also been privileged to publish many articles concerned with “Third World” problems, with series of articles on Chagas’ disease and on hypertension in Nigeria springing immediately to mind. As far as we can judge, aided by our referees, the standard of scientific material published in our pages is high. From our own “expert” stance as Paediatric Cardiologist and Morphologist, we certainly know that most of the papers published in our fields have been of the highest quality. While putting our emphasis on original material, we have not shirked the need to provide the forum for reviews, and, perhaps more importantly, for more iconoclastic opinions. In this latter area, we can cite the series of incisive reviews provided by Stephen Seely. Submitted by Seely, backed only by his B.Sc., and on headed paper from the University of Manchester, we had presumed these pieces came from the pen of a young scientific research worker striving to make his way in the Cardiological world. We were, to say the least, surprised to find that Stephen has passed his eightieth year and is still going strong. Indeed, in his latest exchange, he called us to task for not having reviewed his offering within six weeks!
127
We are sure that many of our other authors share his views in this respect, but we hope they will appreciate that it is not always easy to prise reports from the desks of busy reviewers, who often work on behalf of several journals. Once they establish themselves as rapid and efficient reviewers, their task is likely to increase markedly as they are bombarded by grateful editors. It is this interface between referee, author and editor that has been the most difficult one during our tenure to satisfy to the gratification of all. We presume that all authors, like ourselves, feel greatly chastened should they receive a rejection slip. It is hardly surprising if they hold the opinion that the referee has not understood their work. It is for this reason that we ask our own referees to justify fully their reasons for rejection. A short report stating “this work is terrible” is of little value. We also ask them to emphasize the publishable parts of any manuscript rather than rejecting it out of hand. How often have we seen scripts rejected by us as referees which are then published virtually unchanged in another Journal along with all the faults identified in our initial review? This may have been, in part, because we did not make ourselves clear in our review. More likely, it expresses the fact that most papers written nowadays will, eventually, be published somewhere. We view our task, therefore, as weeding out the faults and finding the good things in most of the work submitted to us. This does not mean that we publish everything. Our referees will often tell us that a work is fundamentally flawed. If this is the case, we look for evidence that they have identified the flaws and try to indicate to our authors how, if at all, the work can be remedied for eventual publication elsewhere. We reject it for consumption in the International Journal. This process is time-consuming. As the material submitted to us continues to expand, therefore, we have taken to using only one referee, but one in whom experience has shown we can trust. We have often found that it is the younger referees, about to embark on their own independent careers, who give the best and most thorough reviews. They do not have an axe to grind, and they tend to have more time to prepare their
reports. At the same time, we have identified a group of well-recognised international experts who work tirelessly in providing our excellent reviews, matching all the efforts of our younger colleagues. We try to reward most of our “regulars” by placing them upon our Editorial board, but some are not yet thus promoted. They will know who they are, and we thank them all. Our stance, therefore, is to recognise the rights of the author without ignoring those of the referee. Thus far we have had surprisingly few demarcation disputes. Wherever possible, we settle these in favour of the author. In this respect, we have found it immensely helpful to ask reviewers to forego their shield of anonymity when reviewing on our behalf. Some, though, continue to give excellent and unbiased reviews while preferring to retain their anonymity. We respect the views of these first class referees and continue to use them. Increasingly, however, our newer and younger referees are happy to have their names passed on to the author. We find that their reports are then much more constructive, in that they know that the author will know who was responsible for the damning comments. We have all played the game of “recognise the typeface”! Some styles of reviewing are so clear cut that the reviewer may just as well come into the open anyway. We ourselves prefer to state our identity at the outset, since we say nothing in our reviews that we would not repeat face to face to our authors. We believe this approach has increased markedly the standard of refereeing provided by our Journal. Wherever possible, we also try to forego anonymity when refereeing on behalf of other Journals. Unfortunately, this is not always possible. The British Heart Journal still sends us sheets emblazoned with “Referee - please do not sign this form”. We always sign it anyway! One of us requested in writing the ability to forego anonymity when reviewing on behalf of the European Heart Journal 191.This request was considered by the Editorial committee, who recognized the case but felt such an approach would tie the hands of their Editor [lo]. We do not agree with this. Frequently the work emanates from a young doctor who has put a great deal of effort into the study. He or she deserves to know that their
128
brainchild has been assessed by an accountable authority. We were not first to propose abandonment of anonymity. Bill Roberts made this suggestion when assuming the Editorial chair at the American Journal of Cardiology [ll-131, along with suggesting in “Instructions to Authors” that authors propose their own referees. From our own recent experience, however, it seems that this policy may have run its course. Not only was a recent paper of ours submitted to his Journal rejected after being sent to (in our eyes) a grossly biased reviewer, but the referee’s report was eventually published as an Editorial Review [14], despite us having argued forcibly, in correspondence with Roberts, against virtually every comment in the report. We recognise again the obvious right of the Editor to do as he (or she) sees fit! This experience makes nonsense, however, of the ‘right of the author’, and is a cautionary tale for all editors. And so we now enter our second decade. We believe that our Journal is readable, and we do our best as editors to ensure that the work appears in consistent and consumable form. We continue to follow John Kastor’s rule in forbidding all but the most essential abbreviations. Would that all authors would read this rule before submitting their manuscripts! We also discourage the use of alphanumeric categorisations. We have usually forgotten what “Group Ib” was as soon as we have turned over the page. We try as far as possible to follow Kastor’s dictum stated in his opening editorial “As a kindness to readers, if for no other reason, the Editor will look with favor on manuscripts in which the author has taken pity on his audience and has stated his case concisely”. In that light, we have perhaps already written too much in this Editorial. We cannot finish, however, without pointing out that, despite our best efforts, we published one paper which was subsequently shown to be questionable in terms of its handling of scientific material. Despite our continuing efforts, and those of our referees, we must, in the final analysis, rely largely upon the probity of those who submit material for us to review. At a rate of less than 0.1% ‘retractions’ for our pages, our trust is well placed. For this reason alone, all authors deserve our
respect. In the International Journal, we believe that they get it. It would also be most remiss if we did not close with a big “thank you” to the backroom people who really make the Journal work. Felicity Gil has worked untiringly in the London office over and above the call of duty. We are sure that Alice Baldwin is equally indispensable in the office at the Mayo Clinic. Margreet Tillema has guided all our hands from the Elsevier office in Amsterdam, ensuring timely and elegant publication. If the International Journal has been a success in its first decade, it is these ladies who deserve the lion’s share of the credit. Without their efforts, the Journal would not have appeared. We thank them, and we thank you, our readers. If you had not submitted manuscripts, we would not have survived. Keep them coming. Write to us. Tell us your grouses. We will publish all letters to the Editor that are not actionable! We are facilitators, not censors. Help us keep the Journal at the forefront of International Cardiology when we enter the twenty-first century.
European Editors, IJC
Robert H. Anderson Michael Tynan
References I Kastor JA. Editorial. Another cardiology journal? Int J Cardiol 1981;1:3-5. 2 Kastor JA. Editor’s and Publisher’s Note. Appointment of Associate Editors. Int J Cardiol 1983;3:1-2. 3 Kastor JA, Anderson RH, Tynan M. Editors’ and Publisher’s note. Appointment of Associate Editor. Int J Cardiol 1984;5:285. 4 Anderson RH, Kawai C, Tynan M. Moving on. Editorial. Int J Cardiol 1985;8:1-2. 5 Elsevier Science Publishers BV Biomedical Division. Publisher’s Note. Int J Cardiol 1985;9:1. 6 Anderson RH. Letter to the Editor. Eur Heart J 1991;12:471. 7 Schmaltz AA. Letter to the Editor. Eur Heart J 1990;11:1135-1136. 8 Kulbertus H. The editor’s reply. Eur Heart J 1991;12:471. Y Anderson RH. Letter to the Editor. Eur Heart J 1991;12:288. 10 Kulbertus HE. The Editor replies. Eur Heart J 1991;12:288. 11 Roberts WC. A few words from the Journal’s Second Editor. Am J Cardiol 1982;50 (JulyhA3.
129 12 Roberts WC. Reviewing manuscripts: occasionally a test of character. Am J Cardiol 198250 (November):A3. 13 Roberts WC. Yes in the AJC since June 1982. Am J Cardiol 1983:51:A9-10.
14 Van Praagh R, Van Praagh S. Atria1 isomerism in the heterotaxy with asplenia. or polysplenia, or normally formed spleen: an erroneous concept. Am J Cardiol 1990;66:1504-1506.