- Email: [email protected]
Temperature dependence of NMR spectra in YIG with nonmagnetic impurities
140(1), 1–2 2014 doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfu082
TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES
EDITORIAL Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes Gary W. Miller Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia To whom correspondence should be addressed. Fax: (404) 712-8879. E-mail: [email protected].
Contemporary Reviews In Toxicology. These brief reviews from invited authors will provide readers with a critical and timely appraisal of recent and emerging trends in toxicology. We will continue to accept proposals for more in-depth reviews, but we hope to establish the Contemporary Reviews in Toxicology as “must-reads” in graduate programs and journal clubs. While it may not be apparent from a visual perspective, we are also taking steps to increase the rigor of our peer review process. Some of these changes are in response to the issues addressed in the May editorial Improving Reproducibility in Toxicology (Miller, 2014). Specifically, we want our reviewers and editors to ensure the description of the research population, the level of detail in the methods, and the statistical analyses are sufficiently rigorous. This may require additional reviewers, including those with specific expertise in statistics and bioinformatics. While the fate of manuscripts containing serious deficiencies can be readily determined by the expert review of two scientists, many that address complex or controversial issues often need more input. Over the past years, on average the number of reviewers for each submission has been slightly more than 2.1. More reviewers will be obtained in those cases that are warranted, such that our average number of reviewers for each manuscript sent out for review will be greater than 2.5. With an Associate Editor and Editor also examining the submission, each manuscript will be evaluated for scientific quality by at least four, if not five scientists. The increased scrutiny will require additional effort and time from the reviewers and Associate Editors. We ask that published authors accept future requests to review submitted manuscripts as the integrity of the review process relies on the critical analysis provided by the field. Working with our publishing partners at Oxford University Press and examining our own internal systems, we are going to be able to give our reviewers and editors more time to critically evaluate manuscripts, but not increase the overall time to publication. For example, we are adding more frequent reminders for reviewers, including “your assigned review is due in three days” and for those that are late, reminders will deliver a more urgent message regarding the importance of timely reviews. Oxford University Press is now able to deliver Advanced Access publications in mere days after acceptance.
C The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Toxicology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected]
Downloaded from http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 1, 2014
David Bowie, Bob Dylan, Tracy Chapman, and Otis Redding have all written and sung about change. To many, the anticipation of the unknown is met with trepidation and angst. For others, it is their lifeblood. I land somewhere in the middle. While considering the upcoming changes to Toxicological Sciences my subconscious says, “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it” while moments later I hear, “If you aren’t moving forward you are falling behind.” Tinkering with a high-quality journal poses some risk, but in this competitive enterprise we call science, stagnation is not an option. My initial thoughts on this topic are reflected in another anthem of change by Ten Years After, “I’d love to change the world, but I don’t know what to do. . . ” My hesitancy and uncertainty notwithstanding, the Associate Editors, the members of the Board of Publications, and I do have a plan to institute a number of changes to the Journal. Starting with the September issue, readers will notice several significant changes to Toxicological Sciences that are part of a systematic and deliberate plan to improve many facets of the journal. The cover will exhibit an updated design that will continue to feature images from articles within that particular issue, but we will include additional images that help capture the dynamic nature and cutting-edge techniques in the field. A careful analysis of our use of subheadings in the Table of Contents revealed a system that was somewhat arbitrary and at times confusing. Most articles cross multiple categories and the authors were asked to choose a single subcategory in which to place their article. This approach did not lead to consistent assignment of the articles. Rather than trying to pigeonhole our diverse research into subcategories, the new Table of Contents will use more descriptive and targeted subheadings. After the Table of Contents, the new section Look Inside ToxSci will provide highlights of multiple articles in each issue. Similar to our past highlights, these summaries will focus on the impact of the work using straightforward language that will allow the reader to quickly glean the most important conclusions. The Letters to the Editor will follow the Look Inside ToxSci section, as this correspondence should be given a more prominent locale, rather than be relegated to the back of the journal. Toxicological Sciences will continue to focus on primary research articles; however, we are adding a new article type called
2
EDITORIAL
As Editor-in-Chief my goal has been and will continue to be to make Toxicological Sciences as good of a journal as it possibly can be. Over the next several months I hope to hear from many of you about what you like and don’t like about the changes you will start to observe in September. The success of
these changes cannot be determined from the editorial office, but only from the toxicological community, “. . . so I leave it up to you.”
Downloaded from http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 1, 2014
TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES
EDITORIAL Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes Gary W. Miller Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia To whom correspondence should be addressed. Fax: (404) 712-8879. E-mail: [email protected].
Contemporary Reviews In Toxicology. These brief reviews from invited authors will provide readers with a critical and timely appraisal of recent and emerging trends in toxicology. We will continue to accept proposals for more in-depth reviews, but we hope to establish the Contemporary Reviews in Toxicology as “must-reads” in graduate programs and journal clubs. While it may not be apparent from a visual perspective, we are also taking steps to increase the rigor of our peer review process. Some of these changes are in response to the issues addressed in the May editorial Improving Reproducibility in Toxicology (Miller, 2014). Specifically, we want our reviewers and editors to ensure the description of the research population, the level of detail in the methods, and the statistical analyses are sufficiently rigorous. This may require additional reviewers, including those with specific expertise in statistics and bioinformatics. While the fate of manuscripts containing serious deficiencies can be readily determined by the expert review of two scientists, many that address complex or controversial issues often need more input. Over the past years, on average the number of reviewers for each submission has been slightly more than 2.1. More reviewers will be obtained in those cases that are warranted, such that our average number of reviewers for each manuscript sent out for review will be greater than 2.5. With an Associate Editor and Editor also examining the submission, each manuscript will be evaluated for scientific quality by at least four, if not five scientists. The increased scrutiny will require additional effort and time from the reviewers and Associate Editors. We ask that published authors accept future requests to review submitted manuscripts as the integrity of the review process relies on the critical analysis provided by the field. Working with our publishing partners at Oxford University Press and examining our own internal systems, we are going to be able to give our reviewers and editors more time to critically evaluate manuscripts, but not increase the overall time to publication. For example, we are adding more frequent reminders for reviewers, including “your assigned review is due in three days” and for those that are late, reminders will deliver a more urgent message regarding the importance of timely reviews. Oxford University Press is now able to deliver Advanced Access publications in mere days after acceptance.
C The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Toxicology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected]
Downloaded from http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 1, 2014
David Bowie, Bob Dylan, Tracy Chapman, and Otis Redding have all written and sung about change. To many, the anticipation of the unknown is met with trepidation and angst. For others, it is their lifeblood. I land somewhere in the middle. While considering the upcoming changes to Toxicological Sciences my subconscious says, “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it” while moments later I hear, “If you aren’t moving forward you are falling behind.” Tinkering with a high-quality journal poses some risk, but in this competitive enterprise we call science, stagnation is not an option. My initial thoughts on this topic are reflected in another anthem of change by Ten Years After, “I’d love to change the world, but I don’t know what to do. . . ” My hesitancy and uncertainty notwithstanding, the Associate Editors, the members of the Board of Publications, and I do have a plan to institute a number of changes to the Journal. Starting with the September issue, readers will notice several significant changes to Toxicological Sciences that are part of a systematic and deliberate plan to improve many facets of the journal. The cover will exhibit an updated design that will continue to feature images from articles within that particular issue, but we will include additional images that help capture the dynamic nature and cutting-edge techniques in the field. A careful analysis of our use of subheadings in the Table of Contents revealed a system that was somewhat arbitrary and at times confusing. Most articles cross multiple categories and the authors were asked to choose a single subcategory in which to place their article. This approach did not lead to consistent assignment of the articles. Rather than trying to pigeonhole our diverse research into subcategories, the new Table of Contents will use more descriptive and targeted subheadings. After the Table of Contents, the new section Look Inside ToxSci will provide highlights of multiple articles in each issue. Similar to our past highlights, these summaries will focus on the impact of the work using straightforward language that will allow the reader to quickly glean the most important conclusions. The Letters to the Editor will follow the Look Inside ToxSci section, as this correspondence should be given a more prominent locale, rather than be relegated to the back of the journal. Toxicological Sciences will continue to focus on primary research articles; however, we are adding a new article type called
2
EDITORIAL
As Editor-in-Chief my goal has been and will continue to be to make Toxicological Sciences as good of a journal as it possibly can be. Over the next several months I hope to hear from many of you about what you like and don’t like about the changes you will start to observe in September. The success of
these changes cannot be determined from the editorial office, but only from the toxicological community, “. . . so I leave it up to you.”
Downloaded from http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on July 1, 2014