- Email: [email protected]
Year in Review
Editorials
Year in Review By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest. Confucius AS Editor of The Journal of Urology®, what wisdom I have gained in my role has been achieved by reflecting on what has been accomplished with our journal, imitation of what previous editors have done well, and learning from mistakes and experience. It seems appropriate in the last issue of 2009 to review the highlights of the past year with our readers. Among the honors we are most proud of is that The Journal of Urology was chosen by the Special Libraries Association as one of the top 100 most influential journals in medicine and biology during the last century. This is not surprising given that The Journal has the highest total number of citations of any urology journal. This award reflects the dedication and leadership of previous editors and the collaborative efforts of the current publications staff who have served this journal in exemplary fashion. Another accomplishment this year was the overhaul in The Journal’s design and format. Larger fonts and improved color schemes allow easier reading and have been met with enthusiasm by our readers. Practicing community urologists and trainees especially like “Opposing Views,” a new feature which allows 2 experts to take sides of a controversial issue, and argue its pros and cons. Enhancements to The Journal website have garnered a record increase in web hits. According to our readers, one of the most read sections of the print and on-line versions are the “This Month” pages, which were initiated by former editor Dr. Jay Gillenwater and continued by his successors. These pages include brief synopses of articles in the issue selected by the editors not only for the science, but also based on reviewer rankings as well as their timeliness, relevance and novelty. Because the quality of this journal and its future are so intimately linked with peer review, we have continued the tradition of holding peer re0022-5347/09/1826-2553/0 THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY® Copyright © 2009 by AMERICAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
view seminars. Because time is a reviewer’s most valuable commodity, we decided this year to schedule the seminar the day before various AUA section meetings and to invite young academicians from those sections to attend. In this way participants of our course need not travel elsewhere to learn how to peer review. This year we chose the Mid-Atlantic and New England section meetings as our venue. The pre-meeting peer review seminar will be hosted by several editors who will discuss useful concepts in reviewing manuscripts while providing the combined wisdom of our editorial team from their years of experience. Of course none of these successes could be achieved without our authors and reviewers. Again this year we recognized our top reviewers as judged by the quality of their reviews and their timeliness. However, I would also like to thank the hundreds of reviewers who give their time and talent to make The Journal of Urology a leading biomedical journal. With regard to timeliness, I am proud that through the combined efforts of our editors and editorial staff the total time from submission to final decision is only 31 days which breaks down as follows: 1 day assignment by editors, 6 days for reviewers to agree, 14 days to review and notify author, and then only 9 days for revision to acceptance. Of course there are always outliers but on average this review cycle is something in which we take pride. I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge and thank Linda Gruner and Glen Campbell of Elsevier for their efforts as publisher of The Journal. We are in the midst of epic changes in health care in the United States. The peer review process is the foundation of evidence-based clinical practice and The Journal is the vehicle for adherence to cost-effective and quality urological care. Thus essays on evidence-based medicine for urologists and AUA practice guidelines that we publish will not only be the basis for practice protocols as part of the Maintenance of Certification for the American Board of Urology, but will be closely scrutiVol. 182, 2553-2554, December 2009 Printed in U.S.A. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2009.09.024
www.jurology.com
2553
2554
YEAR IN REVIEW
nized by our government and payers for what represents accepted practices in this country. Just as game changing will be the evolution of biomedical publishing. I have gained some wisdom through chairing a meeting of world biomedical editors, attending the International Congress for Peer Review and Biomedical Publishing, and closely monitoring the debates in publishing ethics and conflicts of interest. The future of e-pub-
lishing remains foggy but The Journal is poised to adapt to whatever is the best platform to deliver up-to-date clinical and research findings. Overall, it’s been a vintage year for The Journal of Urology.
William D. Steers Editor
Year in Review By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest. Confucius AS Editor of The Journal of Urology®, what wisdom I have gained in my role has been achieved by reflecting on what has been accomplished with our journal, imitation of what previous editors have done well, and learning from mistakes and experience. It seems appropriate in the last issue of 2009 to review the highlights of the past year with our readers. Among the honors we are most proud of is that The Journal of Urology was chosen by the Special Libraries Association as one of the top 100 most influential journals in medicine and biology during the last century. This is not surprising given that The Journal has the highest total number of citations of any urology journal. This award reflects the dedication and leadership of previous editors and the collaborative efforts of the current publications staff who have served this journal in exemplary fashion. Another accomplishment this year was the overhaul in The Journal’s design and format. Larger fonts and improved color schemes allow easier reading and have been met with enthusiasm by our readers. Practicing community urologists and trainees especially like “Opposing Views,” a new feature which allows 2 experts to take sides of a controversial issue, and argue its pros and cons. Enhancements to The Journal website have garnered a record increase in web hits. According to our readers, one of the most read sections of the print and on-line versions are the “This Month” pages, which were initiated by former editor Dr. Jay Gillenwater and continued by his successors. These pages include brief synopses of articles in the issue selected by the editors not only for the science, but also based on reviewer rankings as well as their timeliness, relevance and novelty. Because the quality of this journal and its future are so intimately linked with peer review, we have continued the tradition of holding peer re0022-5347/09/1826-2553/0 THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY® Copyright © 2009 by AMERICAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
view seminars. Because time is a reviewer’s most valuable commodity, we decided this year to schedule the seminar the day before various AUA section meetings and to invite young academicians from those sections to attend. In this way participants of our course need not travel elsewhere to learn how to peer review. This year we chose the Mid-Atlantic and New England section meetings as our venue. The pre-meeting peer review seminar will be hosted by several editors who will discuss useful concepts in reviewing manuscripts while providing the combined wisdom of our editorial team from their years of experience. Of course none of these successes could be achieved without our authors and reviewers. Again this year we recognized our top reviewers as judged by the quality of their reviews and their timeliness. However, I would also like to thank the hundreds of reviewers who give their time and talent to make The Journal of Urology a leading biomedical journal. With regard to timeliness, I am proud that through the combined efforts of our editors and editorial staff the total time from submission to final decision is only 31 days which breaks down as follows: 1 day assignment by editors, 6 days for reviewers to agree, 14 days to review and notify author, and then only 9 days for revision to acceptance. Of course there are always outliers but on average this review cycle is something in which we take pride. I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge and thank Linda Gruner and Glen Campbell of Elsevier for their efforts as publisher of The Journal. We are in the midst of epic changes in health care in the United States. The peer review process is the foundation of evidence-based clinical practice and The Journal is the vehicle for adherence to cost-effective and quality urological care. Thus essays on evidence-based medicine for urologists and AUA practice guidelines that we publish will not only be the basis for practice protocols as part of the Maintenance of Certification for the American Board of Urology, but will be closely scrutiVol. 182, 2553-2554, December 2009 Printed in U.S.A. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2009.09.024
www.jurology.com
2553
2554
YEAR IN REVIEW
nized by our government and payers for what represents accepted practices in this country. Just as game changing will be the evolution of biomedical publishing. I have gained some wisdom through chairing a meeting of world biomedical editors, attending the International Congress for Peer Review and Biomedical Publishing, and closely monitoring the debates in publishing ethics and conflicts of interest. The future of e-pub-
lishing remains foggy but The Journal is poised to adapt to whatever is the best platform to deliver up-to-date clinical and research findings. Overall, it’s been a vintage year for The Journal of Urology.
William D. Steers Editor