- Email: [email protected]
Tough Acts to Follow
Editorial
Tough Acts to Follow The title of this comment is modified very slightly from that of my immediate predecessor's first editorial. I It is appropriate because it both honors the numerous contributions that Paul Lichter has made to the Journal and indicates my great respect for each of the superb individuals who have preceded me as Editor-in-Chief.2 Besides his many timely and wonderfully savvy editorials, Paul Lichter's leadership has included the development of a remarkably competent editorial office staff, all of whom deserve tremendous credit for continually improving the Journal's quality over the last eight years. Based on the results of a recent readership survey, Ophthalmology is the world's most respected and most widely read English language, clinical ophthalmology journal. Periodic queries of the members of the American Academy of Ophthalmology have consistently indicated that the Annual Meeting and the Journal, Ophthalmology, are regarded as the two primary benefits of membership. Although linked to the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the Journal is scientifically and politically completely independent. All ofthe above makes my immediate goal for the Journal quite clear: not to foul up a smoothly running and successful operation! Personally, as both a contributor and a reviewer, Ophthalmology has always been my favorite among the "big three" American journals. The editorial office has been invariably efficient and compassionate in its handling ofthe communications and other details involved in accepting (and rejecting) my own contributions. I intend to maintain the high levels of respect and integrity that have become the modus operandi for the Journal's interactions with authors and reviewers. Paul's December editorial summarized and updated the many aspects of the Journal's functioning and organization, which establishes a high standard indeed to be continued and, if possible, improved upon as we proceed into the future. In my view, Ophthalmology has rightfully become so successful by adhering to its established standards and accepting for publication only high-quality papers that will both benefit its readers and fulfill its educational mission. My first major task is to orchestrate as smooth a move as possible of the editorial office from Ann Arbor to Los Angeles, including the recruitment and training of a new managing editor and staff. We hope all this will be completed some time in February. Our plan is to do all that is necessary to make the change in location transparent to contributors and readers alike, except for the eventual change in address. Until further notice, however, all communications and submissions should continue to go to the Ann Arbor address. We will provide updates in subsequent editorials. In that I have no track record as an editor, contributors and readers may rightfully be wondering what my editorial philosophy is and what changes I plan for the long term. My primary role as Editor-in-Chief will be to referee communications between contributors, reviewers, and readers. As referee, I must ensure that we all "play by the rules." The rules, of course, include respect for the scientific method and strict adherence to fairness and honesty in the peer-review process. Peer review, historically a relatively young concept, is itself a worthy topic for continuing discussion and research, especially regarding the masking of authors from reviewers. It is highly probable that Ophthalmology will participate in a prospective study of the peer-review process in the near future. I will be, as my predecessors have been, an advocate for both contributors and readers and will be accountable to both. The editorial office will strive to communicate and function
5
Ophthalmology Volume 102, Number 1, January 1995 with respect and sensitivity for the concerns of all interested parties, especially contributors. Paramount ancillary issues include confidentiality and timely review of manuscripts. Continual analysis of the submission, review, and production processes and application of new communication technology when possible should lead to a decrease in the overall time required for review, revision, and printing. Ophthalmology's primary function will remain publication ofthe best papers submitted, including some from the Annual Meeting. The goal is to deliver reliable, timely, and useful clinical information to our readers as rapidly as possible. Virtually, all papers will have been subjected to the peer-review process before publication. As editor, my topic preferences for acceptance of papers will reflect my understanding of the interests of the principal audience, practicing ophthalmologists, including subspecialists. Monthly issues will continue to include papers covering all aspects of clinical ophthalmology, balanced as evenly as possible among general topics and subspecialties. I encourage the submission of both "positive" and "negative" studies or results that have the potential to impact the clinical practice of ophthalmology. Whether retrospective or prospective, clinical studies must include sufficiently detailed and organized data to permit the discerning reader to come to his/her own conclusions regarding interpretation of the study. Case reports and basic science studies that clarify etiologic, diagnostic or therapeutic issues will continue to be welcome. Letters to the editor will be accepted for publication based on their timeliness and usefulness to the readership. Editorials will include frequent guest contributions with vignettes on topics from within as well as from outside clinical ophthalmology, especially allied biomedical sciences. International authorities also will be sought for editorial contributions. The common denominator of topic choices for editorials will be their relevance to clinical ophthalmology and their potential for enhancing the reader's enjoyment and comprehension of the papers published. On a different front, it seems timely to explore standardization of some requirements among ophthalmology journals. Formatting differences among various journals, for example citation style requirements, complicate the resubmission of articles to alternative journals if they are initially rejected. In addition to the necessity of extra contributor labor to retool an article for another journal, the respective editorial offices also are impacted. Besides the potential advantages of standardizing some aspects offormatting, the advent of CD-ROM is a strong incentive for journals dealing with similar topics to cooperate in the development of this new medium for the benefit of their readers. We can hopefully look forward to the eventual availability of a year's vision publications on one or two CDs and the ability to search through it all with incredible speed and versatility. Finally, both contributors and readers may be assured that the Journal's new editorial office staff will continue to understand who really owns the process. You do! References I. Lichter PRo A tough act to follow [editorial]. Ophthalmology 1987;94:23A-24A. 2. Bryan SA. Pioneering Specialists. San Francisco and Rochester: The American Academy of Ophthalmology and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 1982; 16-22.
DON MINCKLER, MD Editor-in-Chief
6
Tough Acts to Follow The title of this comment is modified very slightly from that of my immediate predecessor's first editorial. I It is appropriate because it both honors the numerous contributions that Paul Lichter has made to the Journal and indicates my great respect for each of the superb individuals who have preceded me as Editor-in-Chief.2 Besides his many timely and wonderfully savvy editorials, Paul Lichter's leadership has included the development of a remarkably competent editorial office staff, all of whom deserve tremendous credit for continually improving the Journal's quality over the last eight years. Based on the results of a recent readership survey, Ophthalmology is the world's most respected and most widely read English language, clinical ophthalmology journal. Periodic queries of the members of the American Academy of Ophthalmology have consistently indicated that the Annual Meeting and the Journal, Ophthalmology, are regarded as the two primary benefits of membership. Although linked to the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the Journal is scientifically and politically completely independent. All ofthe above makes my immediate goal for the Journal quite clear: not to foul up a smoothly running and successful operation! Personally, as both a contributor and a reviewer, Ophthalmology has always been my favorite among the "big three" American journals. The editorial office has been invariably efficient and compassionate in its handling ofthe communications and other details involved in accepting (and rejecting) my own contributions. I intend to maintain the high levels of respect and integrity that have become the modus operandi for the Journal's interactions with authors and reviewers. Paul's December editorial summarized and updated the many aspects of the Journal's functioning and organization, which establishes a high standard indeed to be continued and, if possible, improved upon as we proceed into the future. In my view, Ophthalmology has rightfully become so successful by adhering to its established standards and accepting for publication only high-quality papers that will both benefit its readers and fulfill its educational mission. My first major task is to orchestrate as smooth a move as possible of the editorial office from Ann Arbor to Los Angeles, including the recruitment and training of a new managing editor and staff. We hope all this will be completed some time in February. Our plan is to do all that is necessary to make the change in location transparent to contributors and readers alike, except for the eventual change in address. Until further notice, however, all communications and submissions should continue to go to the Ann Arbor address. We will provide updates in subsequent editorials. In that I have no track record as an editor, contributors and readers may rightfully be wondering what my editorial philosophy is and what changes I plan for the long term. My primary role as Editor-in-Chief will be to referee communications between contributors, reviewers, and readers. As referee, I must ensure that we all "play by the rules." The rules, of course, include respect for the scientific method and strict adherence to fairness and honesty in the peer-review process. Peer review, historically a relatively young concept, is itself a worthy topic for continuing discussion and research, especially regarding the masking of authors from reviewers. It is highly probable that Ophthalmology will participate in a prospective study of the peer-review process in the near future. I will be, as my predecessors have been, an advocate for both contributors and readers and will be accountable to both. The editorial office will strive to communicate and function
5
Ophthalmology Volume 102, Number 1, January 1995 with respect and sensitivity for the concerns of all interested parties, especially contributors. Paramount ancillary issues include confidentiality and timely review of manuscripts. Continual analysis of the submission, review, and production processes and application of new communication technology when possible should lead to a decrease in the overall time required for review, revision, and printing. Ophthalmology's primary function will remain publication ofthe best papers submitted, including some from the Annual Meeting. The goal is to deliver reliable, timely, and useful clinical information to our readers as rapidly as possible. Virtually, all papers will have been subjected to the peer-review process before publication. As editor, my topic preferences for acceptance of papers will reflect my understanding of the interests of the principal audience, practicing ophthalmologists, including subspecialists. Monthly issues will continue to include papers covering all aspects of clinical ophthalmology, balanced as evenly as possible among general topics and subspecialties. I encourage the submission of both "positive" and "negative" studies or results that have the potential to impact the clinical practice of ophthalmology. Whether retrospective or prospective, clinical studies must include sufficiently detailed and organized data to permit the discerning reader to come to his/her own conclusions regarding interpretation of the study. Case reports and basic science studies that clarify etiologic, diagnostic or therapeutic issues will continue to be welcome. Letters to the editor will be accepted for publication based on their timeliness and usefulness to the readership. Editorials will include frequent guest contributions with vignettes on topics from within as well as from outside clinical ophthalmology, especially allied biomedical sciences. International authorities also will be sought for editorial contributions. The common denominator of topic choices for editorials will be their relevance to clinical ophthalmology and their potential for enhancing the reader's enjoyment and comprehension of the papers published. On a different front, it seems timely to explore standardization of some requirements among ophthalmology journals. Formatting differences among various journals, for example citation style requirements, complicate the resubmission of articles to alternative journals if they are initially rejected. In addition to the necessity of extra contributor labor to retool an article for another journal, the respective editorial offices also are impacted. Besides the potential advantages of standardizing some aspects offormatting, the advent of CD-ROM is a strong incentive for journals dealing with similar topics to cooperate in the development of this new medium for the benefit of their readers. We can hopefully look forward to the eventual availability of a year's vision publications on one or two CDs and the ability to search through it all with incredible speed and versatility. Finally, both contributors and readers may be assured that the Journal's new editorial office staff will continue to understand who really owns the process. You do! References I. Lichter PRo A tough act to follow [editorial]. Ophthalmology 1987;94:23A-24A. 2. Bryan SA. Pioneering Specialists. San Francisco and Rochester: The American Academy of Ophthalmology and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 1982; 16-22.
DON MINCKLER, MD Editor-in-Chief
6