Communications Chemistry.Dr David Nelson talks about his motivation for being a chemist, his viewpoints on the research field of homogeneous catalysis, as well as his experience of being an Editorial Board Member for  David studied chemistry at the University of Edinburgh (MChem 2008) before moving to the University of Strathclyde to complete his PhD (2012) with Professor Jonathan Percy in the area of alkene metathesis catalysed by ruthenium complexes. He then worked as a Research Fellow with Professor Steven Nolan FRSE at the University of St Andrews on a range of topics across late transition metal chemistry and catalysis. He started his independent career at the University of Strathclyde in 2014 as a Chancellor’s Fellow and was promoted to Senior Lecturer in 2018. His team focuses on understanding transition metal-catalysed reactions, particularly nickel-catalysed reactions and C–H activation reactions. David was awarded a 2020 Thieme Chemistry Journals Prize and the 2021 RSC Inorganic Reaction Mechanisms Early Career Award.Why did you choose to be a scientist?I’ve always been curious about how things work, and so I was always attracted to science and computing subjects when I was at high school. I’d originally considered going into medicine but found that chemistry was really where my passion was, so I pursued a chemistry degree. During my degree, it was really the research side of things that excited me and so I’ve been doing chemistry research ever since!What scientific development are you currently most excited about?Jolene Reid (UBC) who has some really nice ways of thinking about how general a catalyst is, as opposed to being fixated purely on the yield in a specific reaction.I’m a bit of a cynic when it comes to ‘hot topics’ – there are some concepts and tools that are emerging now that could really be transformative but sometimes distinguishing true progress from buzzwords and bandwagons is not straightforward. I really enjoy reading work where new reactivity is discovered, established doctrine is challenged, and new ways of thinking about chemistry are introduced. So, I like seeing what’s going on in fields such as catalysis with main group elements, and I really like the fact that more and more teams are really keen to delve into reaction mechanisms and truly understand their chemistry. One of my team members has been collaborating with What direction do you think your research field should go in?I think the nickel catalysis field needs to get to grips with the very wide range of reaction mechanisms that can be invoked: there’s no one true mechanism that covers all reactions and the reaction behaviour can be very dependent on ligand and substrate structure. It’s complicated, but if we fully understand what determines the mechanism then there is amazing scope for the fine tuning of synthetic reactions.Communications Chemistry?What attracted you to becoming an Editorial Board Member for Two things really. Firstly, publishing the outcomes of our work is such an important part of what we do that I think every academic has a responsibility to do their part to make sure that the system is fair and honest and that the technical quality of published papers is as high as possible. Secondly, I’d interacted with the publishing process many times as an author but I’d seen relatively little of what goes on in the background and how the process works. I truly think that seeing how a process works behind the scenes better equips you to interact with that system from the outside. I use the analogy of working in retail. I spent my weekends as an undergraduate student working in DIY and electronics stores and so this influences the way I behave in shops now – I make a point of treating shop staff with respect and I hate seeing things abandoned on the wrong shelves in a supermarket!Communications Chemistry?What have you gotten out of the experience of being an Editorial Board Member for I’ve learnt a lot about the publishing process, and also about how to write a good review. I’ve read loads of reviews by this point and know which ones are going to help me make a decision on a manuscript and which are not particularly useful. I’ve also been exposed to a lot more varied science than I perhaps would have been if all of my reading was limited to my immediate area of interest. I do get a lot of satisfaction out of seeing a paper come through the process and end up as a final published article that has been improved as a result of constructive feedback from the referees.How do your editorial responsibilities integrate with your academic role?Publishing and reviewing research is a big part of an academic job, so I feel that it’s helped me to look at my approach to these activities with a fresh pair of eyes, especially when it comes to writing a review that the editor can confidently make a decision based on. I frequently read and feed back on writing from my team and my colleagues  so things I’ve learned and examples I’ve seen during my editorial role have helped me here.Communications Chemistry in the scientific community?What do you see as the role of the policies on different types of data are always being refined and are excellent guidelines for any researcher to ensure that their data and its reporting are top notch.At the end of the day, I think any journal has to focus on publishing papers of a high technical quality. Assessing ‘impact’ is very subjective, but a journal that covers the whole gamut of chemistry needs to be publishing work that is of some interest to more than one chemistry subdiscipline. General chemistry journals are also a good way to expose readers to a wider range of chemistry than you might otherwise go looking for: you might be browsing an issue to see what relevant papers have come up and something in a quite different area might catch your eye! The journal has also been quite proactive in thinking about data quality and how data are reported – This interview was conducted by the editors of Communications Chemistry.


The Journal of the Brazilian College of Surgeons (JBCS) has a very rich and diverse background. Launched in 1930 as the “Bulletin of the Brazilian College of Surgeons” it became gradually a traditional and relevant medical journal, although it was published with varying periodicity. The current name was changed in 1967 by decision of the National Board of the BCS and since 1974 it was published bimonthly on a regular basis. A single continuous annual online volume was adopted since January 2020.In these almost 50 years of continuous publication, the JBCS has gained in importance and scope, currently being indexed in significant databases such as SciELO, LILACS, SCOPUS, SJR and PUBMED, increasing the availability of published articles and contributing to the advancement of national scientific knowledge.In the last two years, we have updated our editorial policies and practices to maintain international indexing. Recently, the digital preservation of all the papers published since 2009 in JBCS was achieved. Soon, more than 1200 full text articles will be available in PubMed Central - PMC .Currently only 48 of the 98 Brazilian health science journals indexed in SciELO have their articles available in full text in Medline/PMC.Our efforts will now be directed towards obtaining indexation in the Web of Science, in order to have an impact factor, which will enhance the visibility of the JBCS, both nationally and internationally. We use CiteScore that is the number of citations received by a journal in one year to documents published in the three previous years, divided by the number of documents indexed in Scopus published in those same three years. Our CiteScore in 2015 was 0.5 (2012 to 2015), in 2019 it was 1.0 (2016 to 2019) and in 2023 it reached 1.8 (2019 to 2022). There is much more room for growth, but it doesn’t just depend on internal factors within the journal and the Brazilian College of Surgeons.In this two-year period, our initial efforts were to analyze all the manuscripts that were under review and establish a new proposal for submitting and reviewing articles. There was a marked improvement in the timing of all the journal’s processes, from receipt of the manuscript, document analysis (1- adequacy of the number of words in the whole text and in each section of the article (automatic), 2- CEP approval document, 3- Term of absence of conflicts of interest, 4- Term of authorship, and 5- Equator Checklist), checking of content and admissibility by the editor, carrying out the similarity test (Ithenticate); The manuscript is then sent to the reviewers for evaluation, the evaluation reports are sent to the authors with a decision as to whether or not to publish it and, once approved, the paper is sent for layout, translation into English, payment of fees, approval by the author and publication on the JBCS website and on the PMC portal.None of this would have been possible without the valuable participation of our reviewers from the most varied areas of surgery, who have worked hard to meet the necessary deadlines so that JBCS can further improve its speed indicators for evaluating manuscripts.The quality of articles published in JBCS has been assured by the rigorous peer review process ensuring that only good quality articles are published, following international standards that support the guidelines and recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Editors (ICMJE), Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).Our editorial policy seeks to value the manuscripts received, passing through the content analysis and admissibility criteria, so that it can, at least, receive a first opinion on the quality of the article submitted. Some problems in the evaluated manuscripts have drawn attention: 1) low quality of the scientific text, especially the method, 2) lack of following instructions to authors that are updated on the website (https://www.revistadocbc.org.br/instrucoes -to-authors), 3) similarity test with high percentages due to the lack of adequacy of bibliographic references throughout the text, being returned for corrections and 4) difficulties for authors in the review process in making the suggested adjustments in a study with inadequate design. An example of this are submitted integrative and systematic reviews that rarely follow the standards defined in the instructions to authors.For each new step in this climb towards improving the quality of articles and visibility of Brazilian scientific publications to maintain and achieve new international indexations, the number of criteria that need to be met increases, both in terms of the journal’s internal processes, quality and agility of reviewers, but also in the academic and scientific quality of the articles submitted. Therefore, we have to adopt individual and institutional measures that will ensure the highest quality in national scientific publications, including the training of human resources , training of advisors, public and private incentive policies scientific projects, maintenance of active and functional research groups in different areas of surgery in all regions of the country, and also the qualification of reviewers.Among the years JBCS become an important and relevant Brazilian journal in the field of Surgery, publishing papers in diverse areas of surgical research as Head and Neck Surgery, Acute Care Surgery, Digestive Surgery, Experimental Surgery, General Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgery, Surgical Oncology, Pediatric Surgery, Thoracic Surgery, Vascular Surgery, Colorectal Surgery, Medical Education, Digestive Endoscopy, Healthcare Management , and Transplant.Other surgical specialties that are not listed above may submit articles of interest within selected topics as Emergency, Trauma, Oncology, Medical Education and Healthcare Management). Articles from several other health science fields have been refused since they fall outside this scope and unfortunately they will not find good local journals for publication.Over the next few years, several innovations are being evaluated to be help our team to move forward with the mission to disseminate high-quality research in Surgery. In order to accomplish this mission, the Brazilian College of Surgeons should coordinate with the various surgical research groups and collaborate to expand opportunities for surgical research, particularly multicenter studies.


Open Peer Review is gaining prominence in attention and use, but to responsibly open up peer review, there is an urgent need for additional evidence. Here, we propose a preliminary research agenda and issue a call to action. Open Peer Review is gaining prominence in attention and use, but to responsibly open up peer review there is an urgent need for additional evidence. This Perspective proposes a preliminary research agenda and issues a call-to-action. PLOS Biology 20th Anniversary Collection.This article is part of the Open Science innovations such as open methods, code, and data aim to reduce questionable and problematic research practices and build trustworthiness through increased transparency and accountability of research . ScholarWhile we tend to think of peer review as a constant in scholarly life, models of review have been in flux since their inception in an effort to accommodate diverse and changing expectations . DespiteA main limitation to optimizing peer review practices is a fundamental lack of knowledge . For a sOPR has seen a rise in interest in recent years  and has Despite these high expectations, the evidence-base on which such claims rest is very thin ,10. In pAdditional areas of concern exist for each type of OPR. For Open Identities, the question of whether and how they might increase status bias in review processes will be important to answer. The ubiquitous concern that more junior reviewers will either limit their criticisms of more established scholars or risk reprisals from the latter at a later point in their careers has barely been investigated. There is, however, evidence that, given the option to sign, senior or male authors are more likely to do so. Hence, there is an urgent need to further examine how power dynamics affect review processes under conditions of Open Identities. For Open Reports, whether and how they might improve publication quality and trustworthiness remains an open question. Equally important will be how they function to build trust among broader reading publics. For Open Participation, evidence is very scant. Hence, there is a need to investigate how such crowdsourcing can be successfully scaled, whether it leads to more diversity, and how these processes affect the quality and trustworthiness of the items under review.Failure to perform empirical research on these questions will likely lead to implementation in the absence of evidence. Innovation is essential, and OPR has the potential to bring much good but may also have undesirable side effects. Without sound evidence, we risk not only wasting resources but could also potentially worsen the situation.As the arc of scholarly communication bends towards greater transparency and openness, addressing these evidence gaps is urgently necessary. We call upon all stakeholders—particularly researchers, publishers, and funders—to contribute in achieving this aim. To inspire that process, we have sketched out a preliminary research agenda containing what we assess to be the most pressing questions, including the most promising research approaches to be used in addressing them. The initial step should be to extend and validate the agenda itself through cocreative methods. Although our prioritization of questions and methods draws heavily from a recent preprint that surveys the literature , we beliBefore executing the research agenda, we should collaboratively agree on core outcomes. Such a core outcome set should not be designed too narrowly, so as not to compromise the diversity of modes of knowledge production and the inherent quality criteria that they encompass. Yet, a certain degree of standardization would facilitate subsequent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies testing the effects of transparency and other interventions designed to improve the effectiveness of peer review. Examples of core outcomes range from the quality of the review reports, the impact on the item under review, and the detection of problematic research practices to process parameters such as acceptance rates of review invitations, time taken to perform the review, or satisfaction of reviewers, editors, and authors. Following this preliminary work, the community should work together to study concerns related to OPR .Addressing this question requires either large-scale observational studies or, when feasible, randomized controlled trials across multiple epistemic communities, publishing contexts, and stakeholders. Because these studies are both resource intensive and dependent on the availability of sufficient data, we propose both funding agencies and scholarly communication stakeholders  to collectively engage in this endeavor.Due to a lack of evidence either way, no definitive conclusions can yet be drawn regarding the existence or consequences of backbiting or blunted criticisms, e.g., in models with Open Identities. As such, fears have a major role in perceptions of OPR; finding out if and how they are substantiated by evidence should be a priority. In addition, the effect of OPR elements on power imbalances requires in-depth analysis, as demographics do seem to have a heavy role in who opts to engage with OPR models.This includes preprint peer review and publish–review–curate models but also review of objects such as datasets, software/code, and monographs, as well as review processes in funding and hiring contexts. As many of these contexts and models are likely to gain prominence in the future, and some of them  use certain elements of OPR more or less by default, a better understanding of the merits and consequences of OPR in these settings is urgently needed.OPR, understood as the application of Open Science principles to increase transparency and participation in peer review, seems to have rich potential to help in reshaping scholarly communication towards greater trustworthiness and validity. Yet, despite increased uptake of OPR models, scholarly work to assess their effectiveness has not kept pace. We hope our provisional research agenda may inspire collaborative efforts to address this.


Can rethinking editorial assessment reduce subjectivity and transform the way science is communicated? Importantly, good science should be defined by objective criteria and be amenable to scrutiny by “testable and refutable” means . These vague terms are all subjective and thereby open to different interpretations by different individuals.Editorial assessment of relevancy, in particular at the pre‐review stage, includes evaluations of journal‐specific criteria: such as whether the work falls within the journal's scope, adherence to technical guidelines, quality of the language and so on. But it also includes evaluation of whether the science is of interest to the journal. Indeed, a quick survey of various top biomedical journals' guidelines—the “Aims and Scope” section to inform authors of the journal's selection criteria—disclose that these aim to publish reports that are impactful, insightful, timely, elegant or “of surprising conclusions”, to name a few . Less chances for publication in highly selective journals may translate to lower chances to get funding; reducing the ability of research groups to maintain their output. For example, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) uses a merit‐based system to determine which research proposals will receive funding. Proposals that are deemed to have the greatest potential for scientific or technological advancement judged by publications are given priority. Even more troubling is the effect on the reputation of the research group, which can have a substantial negative effect on hiring. As graduate students and postdocs are facing ever‐increasing competition over academic and industrial positions, it is therefore not unexpected that they may prefer research groups with a higher probability of publishing in top‐tier journals. This further reduces the pool of good candidates who are interested in certain research areas and thereby enhances the dimming effect.Collectively, these considerations call into question whether the primarily “subjective pre‐review assessment” has a meaningful role in science. There is no question that a certain filter is required, including quality checks, otherwise, reviewers will be swamped with work—as is, review acceptance rates have been dropping for years Dance, . HoweverThe pre‐review editorial consideration is not only subjective and detrimental to science but it is also obsolete. On a technical level, many “mundane” chores at the pre‐review stage could be automated or done by technical experts, such as checks for completeness, plagiarism, image manipulations and language quality. Interestingly, different journals employ quality checks at the pre‐review stage to varying degrees . Perhaps, it is time to standardize this step. This should further weed out unsuitable manuscripts, which both editors and reviewers are likely to benefit from. Moreover, this streamlining should help to reduce the time between submission and publication.a priori. The same expert would then draft the final decision solely based on external reviews. Lastly, editorial consideration is somewhat redundant, as several of their roles overlap with those of the reviewers, rendering it inefficient. Scientific journals could therefore profit twofold by eliminating the pre‐review consideration: save money on salaries and shorten time to publication.Other technical tasks that may require human attention, for instance, communicating with authors, can be tasked to technical experts instead of scientific editors. In the case of professional editors, this would probably reflect the same person; however, the editor, aka technical expert, would no longer be required to make decisions based on subjective criteria, but would only need to decide if the work in question fulfils a set of well‐defined criteria before it is sent to peer review. These criteria could be established by the journal or by researchers themselves, and if posted online, would better serve authors to decide whether their reports meet these requirements as opposed to the current “Aims and Scope”. This would also entail abandoning ill‐defined criteria, such as novelty or timeliness, and other non‐quantitative measures that have not been specifically defined PLoS One was among the first journals to forego subjective criteria such as novelty or relevance. Review Commons and Peer Community In offer journal‐independent review of pre‐print manuscripts without journal‐specific criteria, although they do maintain the authority to editorially reject papers. The editorial decisions are intended to be suitable for a collection of different journals, likely rendering their definitions of novelty, interest or impact broader or more relaxed than in standard journals. After review, the authors may choose to transfer their manuscript alongside reviews and revisions to different journals within the initiative. Once there, however, the manuscript remains bound to journal‐specific criteria and subjectivity.Abandoning the subjective pre‐review editorial assessment may appear revolutionary and controversial, however, there are signs that things are already heading in that direction. For instance, eLife. Their latest policy empowers authors to decide whether or not to publish their manuscript in the journal irrespective of the reviewers' reports, thereby circumventing the final editorial decision. However, it does not resolve the underlying problem of pre‐review editorial subjectivity; instead, it worsens it by putting more emphasis on the pre‐review step and therefore even more power in the hands of editors and the pre‐review editorial consideration step.Another attempt to bypass subjectivity has recently been introduced by A potential solution is a system without editors and without pre‐review evaluation. While the advantages are obvious for the scientific community, it must be appreciated that adopting an editorial‐free system would entirely change the way science is communicated and evaluated. First, an editorial‐free system would likely drown scientific journals in submissions, especially top‐tier journals where many scientists strive to publish. Unless provided with added incentives, such as financial compensation, acceptance rates by reviewers are likely to plummet further, exacerbate delays in publication and reduce the quality of reviews.These problems may motivate authors to seek alternative publication routes, such as pre‐print servers. Naturally, many scientists may be deterred from doing so, as pre‐prints are not peer reviewed and researchers may fear that the community would not seriously consider their manuscript and results, especially in the biomedical fields. However, pre‐prints are becoming increasingly accepted by the scientific community, not to mention major publishers, and are taken quite seriously, as attested by the growing number of cited pre‐prints.scooping protection, are citable and can still be submitted to traditional journals. Importantly, pre‐prints are curated to a certain degree for completeness, quality, language and so forth, minimizing posting of subpar reports. The one major setback with this system is the poor engagement of the research community—so far only 5% of pre‐prints have received comments although gradual increases are noted . In fact, there is no clear definition of what constitutes an expert reviewer, and the criteria for selecting reviewers may vary across disciplines, journals and editors. These could be easily remedied if the referees were obligated to identify themselves and disclose which part of the paper they reviewed. Regardless of whether the comments were provided by experts or not, authors should be able to respond and address irrelevant comments.subjectivity problem, it also requires funders and institutions to adopt the DORA principles, and to judge scientists' contributions solely by what is described in their publications and not based on where these were published. This should empower scientists and relieve their concerns to some extent. Ultimately, for this change to ensue, more scientists need to change their habits and start appreciating their colleagues' work irrespective of whether this was published in high‐impact journals or not.Unfortunately, many scientists still prefer to submit to top journals given the irresistible lure of high‐impact factor journals and the notion that publications therein greatly increase a researcher's chance to get funding, prizes or to secure a position in academic research. Second, there is the widespread assumption—especially in biomedical fields—that only scientific journals can provide the “seal of approval” for scientific integrity and validity. Thus, it appears that the greatest problem is the scientific community itself and its concerns. While pre‐prints or other means provide a viable solution to the One means to drive this change is by convincing institutions and agencies to mandate posting of pre‐prints. First, pre‐prints bear no cost to authors, which is in line with the current upheaval surrounding the high publication fees charged by many journals (see recommended reading list). Second, it is free and accessible to anyone, which increases the visibility and impact of the research by reaching a wider audience. Third, it is faster, both in terms of dissemination and the progression of science as a whole. It thus allows students to finish their degrees on time and to establish credit and priority. Moreover, pre‐prints can facilitate collaboration among researchers as they can invite comments, suggestions and corrections from the scientific community. Finally, it levels the field between different countries, institutions, fields of study, different positions of researchers and author seniority.Understandably, there are many concerns about a scenario that abandons submissions to scientific journals at large. Who will validate publications and assess whether the results are sound and correctly interpreted? How should funding agencies decide whom to fund? How will institutions assess the quality of applicants for open positions, promotions and so on? I believe the answer is quite simple: evaluate the science, rather than rely on the judgements and pre‐selection of editors, which is becoming the norm in several areas, such as academic promotions.But can we trust scientists to assess the quality of their colleagues' work impartially? Universities, institutions, funding agencies and journals certainly do. Scientists conduct research, educate the next generation of scientists, review grant proposals and so on, all of which are based on the notion that scientists act professionally and fairly. Moreover, scientists are trusted by funding agencies to efficiently manage the money they obtain to carry out research. Thus, why should not others do so? Given the right environment, with reduced publishing pressures and less competition over select journals, we could rid ourselves of the perpetuated impact factor madness and the toxic environment it has created.Removing editorial consideration from the publication process is not a panacea for all problems that plague science and publishing. But it would at least greatly reduce the subjectivity in the publication process and emancipate scientists from perpetual submissions–rejections rounds and from tiresome and lengthy review duties to assess if a paper is sufficiently “novel” and “relevant”. It would free scientists' time to read and comment on pre‐prints instead and make scientific research and findings accessible by anyone. This could engender a new culture of online commenting and reviewing and pave the way for new means of communication and interaction between scientists. For instance, posted manuscripts could be progressively modified or corrected in response to online comments, or other scientists could even post their own results alongside another pre‐print in support or opposition to the results presented and their interpretation. This creates a scenario where smaller pieces of data—not enough to justify a full paper—can supplement other manuscripts, which actually reflects the “scientific endeavour” by allowing individual scientists to directly contribute to the greater task of understanding the world.The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.CBC News (2015) Academic publishers reap huge profits as libraries go broke | CBC News.The Observer.Fazackerley A (2023) ‘Too greedy’: mass walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees. Tidsskr Den Nor Legeforeninghttps://doi.org/10.4045/tidsskr.20.0118Hagve M (2020) The money behind academic publishing. Front Hum Neurosci 12Brembs B (2018) Prestigious science journals struggle to reach even average reliability. https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/03/12/the‐social‐sciences‐are‐useless‐so‐why‐do‐we‐study‐them‐heres‐a‐good‐reason/ (accessed 8.12.23).Anon (2021) The social sciences are useless. So why do we study them? Here's a good reason: | Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science Nature 588: 181–184 https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586‐020‐03381‐3Woolston C (2020) Uncertain prospects for postdoctoral researchers. PLoS Comput Biol 13: e1005473 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005473Bourne PE, Polka JK, Vale RD, Kiley R (2017) Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission. Res Integr Peer Rev 5: 6 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073‐020‐00092‐1Tennant JP, Ross‐Hellauer T (2020) The limitations to our understanding of peer review.


The journal is now fully indexed and listed in all relevant databases, a list of the indexing services where the journal is included is available at The Impact Factor 2022 of EJNMMI Radiopharmacy and Chemistry is 4.6. The journal is included in the following JCR categories:CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL - ESCI.RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING - ESCI.CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR - ESCI.The journal has published impactful research and review articles which resulted in this very encouraging Impact Factor which proves the importance of the journal in the field of radiopharmacy and radiochemistry.Thank you very much to all authors for their submissions as well as to the reviewers for evaluating the papers. Also a big thank to the Editors and Editorial Board Members for their ongoing support, input and ideas and for reviewing. The Editorial Board consists now of 80 scientists in the field and is continously expanding. Recently new Board members from Africa and South America were introduced aiming to strengthen our field in these continents. New Reviewers and Board Members are always welcome.EJNMMI RPC covers the content of new research in the field of development of new imaging and radionuclide-based therapeutic agents for application in nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. The journal provides a platform for chemists, pharmacists and basic scientists to present their views and scientific work. In addition, the journal provides insight into novel concepts of imaging or radionuclide-based therapeutic agent applications of relevance for the whole molecular imaging community.Based on recent developments in the field and additional needs of the readership the journal is now also interested in production methods for radionuclides, emerging radionuclide therapy, Artificial Intelligence is emerging and found its application in the Radiopharmaceutical field, the need for harmonization of methods (Best practice), and guidance , abstracts and proceedings of congresses.A collection is open for submission dedicated only to Best Practices in order to support the field in implementing novel methodologies and attempting to achieve more harmonization of methods.I hope to continue all the good work and aim that EJNMMI Radiopharmacy and Chemistry can further increase and establish its role being a strong platform for communication and publications in the field of Radiopharmacy and Radiochemistry.https://ejnmmipharmchem.springeropen.com/ where also additional metrics like downloads and turnaround times are listed.I am very much looking forward to receive your submissions to EJNMMI Radiopharmacy and Chemistry. The online submission and the submission guidelines for the considered article types are available on the journal website Thank you for your ongoing support.Philip Elsinga, Editor-in-Chief.


DEAR COLLEAGUES,ArchivesofEndocrinologyandMetabolism – AE&M. Invited by the former president of SBEM, Dr. Nina Rosa Musolino, I accepted this mission proposing some changes, starting with altering the written language to English, seeking greater entrance in international endocrinology. In this way, the Arquivos Brasileiros de Endocrinologia e Metabologia became the Archives of Endocrinology and Metabolism.After 8 years and feeling accomplished, I am leaving the role of Editor-in-chief of our beloved At the time I was criticized. But I argued that the Journal would continue to be the official publication of SBEM, just like other journals that represent the scientific community of their countries and are also published in English, which, by the way, it became the universal scientific language . Over tiThe migration from paper to the online version, an increasingly sustainable practice, was also positive.With the online publication and changing to English as the official language, we started to receive from Brazil and abroad, a significantly greater number of article submissions. Total of 4,080; 646 being accepted!I am sure that our Journal will continue to grow with the new Editor-in-chief, Dr. Beatriz D'Agord Schaan, considering her competence and commitment to Science and, from now on, I am available to help in any way necessary.Finally, I believe that we would not have achieved these goals without the collaboration of the editorial assistants, reviewers, my co-editors and, of course, SBEM. Not to mention you, dear colleague, who honored us by reading and submitting your articles.Thank you very much. I wish that AE&M continue to reflect more and more the advances in Endocrinology and Metabology worldwide!


Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies are here to stay and cannot be ignored. These tools are able to generate highly-realistic human-like text and perform a wide range of useful language tasks with a wide range of applications. They have the potential to expedite innovation in health care and can aid in promoting equity and diversity in research by overcoming language barriers. When using these AI tools, authors must take responsibility for the output and originality of their work, as publishers expect all content to be generated by human authors unless there is a declaration to the contrary. Authors must disclose how AI tools have been used, and ensure appropriate attribution of all the text, images, and audio-visual material. The responsible use of AI language models and transparent reporting of how these tools were used in the creation of information and publication are vital to promote and protect the credibility and integrity of medical research, and trust in medical knowledge. Educating postgraduate and undergraduate students, researchers and authors on the applications and best usage of AI-assisted technologies, together with the importance of critical thinking, integrity and strict adherence to ethical principles, are key steps that need to be undertaken. Natural language processing (NLP) is another branch of AI that gives computers the ability to understand text and spoken words, similar to humans. These technologies enable computers to process human language in text or voice data form and to understand its full meaning, together with the writer’s or speaker’s intent or sentiment2. A large language model (LLM) is an AI algorithm that uses deep learning techniques and massive data sets to understand, summarise, generate and predict new content. LLM can be considered a type of generative AI that specifically generates text-based content3. A chatbot is a computer program that uses AI and NLP to understand questions or prompts, and automate responses to them, simulating human conversation. Chatbots continue to evolve and improve, and by using advanced AI tools, are currently able to discern the user’s needs to determine what the user is trying to accomplish. Based on machine and deep learning, as well as continued human user interactions, chatbots have increasing ability to predict user’s needs more accurately and respond more correctly over time4.Artificial intelligence (AI) is a field which aims at problem-solving by combining computer science with robust datasets. Machine learning, a branch of AI, uses data and algorithms to imitate the way humans learn, gradually improving its accuracy with time5. As Open AI made ChatGPT user-friendly, easily accessible and free-to-use, ChatGPT became an instant hit, with millions of people worldwide trying out and using this new tool. Following ChatGPT’s success, other companies have also developed conversational AI models6. Since its inception, ChatGPT has dramatically impacted general and healthcare education, academic and scientific writing, research and medical practice. ChatGPT has shown numerous benefits, including the ability to write presentable student essays, summarise research papers, do literature reviews, generate codes and answer questions well enough to pass medical exams. It can help streamline clinical workflow, documentation, and improve health literacy by providing easily accessible and understandable health information to the general public. It has even produced good enough research abstracts that scientists find difficult to determine whether or not they have been generated by a computer or human10. LLM may be able to remove language barriers by enabling more people from non-English speaking nations to write high-quality text6.In November 2022, OpenAI, an American company based in San Francisco, released a new open-source NLP tool called ChatGPT. GPT stands for “generative pretrained transformer”. ChatGPT is an evolution of an earlier chatbot (“InstructGPT”) that was trained to follow an instruction in a prompt or question and then provide a detailed response. ChatGPT interacts in a conversational way, with its dialogue format making it possible for ChatGPT “to answer follow-up questions, admit its mistakes, challenge incorrect premises, and reject inappropriate requests”14. Chatbots and other AI-assisted technologies cannot be listed as an author of a paper because being non-human , they do not fulfil the ICMJE authorship criteria. They will not be able to undertake responsibilities required for authorship, i.e. vouching for accuracy, integrity and originality of the work; “giving final approval of the version to be published” and “to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved”14. Similarly, AI tools will not be able to understand or legally sign a conflict-of-interest statement14. Several preprints and published articles have already credited ChatGPT with formal authorship!9. In January 2023, the Elsevier journal Nurse Education in Practice sparked a huge debate when it published an article listing ChatGPT as a co-author, but subsequently published a corrigendum removing ChatGPT and leaving a human as the sole author16.However, the use of ChatGPT and other AI-assisted technologies has raised concerns about its limitations and dangers, particularly issues relating to the authenticity and credibility of academic work. Authors of scientific papers have certain responsibilities that cannot be assumed by any computer or AI programme6. Since the recent rise of ChatGPT, an increasing number of journals, publishers and leading bodies such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and World Association of Medical Journal Editors (WAME) have produced guidelines advocating ethical use of AI-assisted technologies, such as chatbots, LLMs or image creators14. Scientific essays that appear credible may contain a mix of true and completely fabricated generated data17. Chatbots and other AI-assisted technologies are highly dependent on algorithms and the contents of materials used in its training, and hence retain the information supplied to them for possible use in future responses. Problems such as unintentional plagiarism and misattribution of concepts are real concerns, and irrelevant content may be incorporated into the generated output14. As a chatbot may be designed to omit sources that oppose viewpoints expressed in its output, bias may be introduced in its output. It is therefore the authors’ responsibility to seek out, review and include such counterviews in their articles14. One current limitation of ChatGPT is that it is only able to generate text based on the input provided to it, i.e. it does not have access to external information or the ability to browse the internet. This means that ChatGPT will be unable to provide accurate or up-to-date information on a wide range of topics18. ChatGPT may also not be able to generate responses to complex or unconventional questions.Authors need to carefully review and edit all material because although AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that are often linguistically accurate and convincingly fluent, this output can be incorrect, incomplete or biased17. Some AI tools also fabricate references, something that reviewers and editors need to be cognisant of during the review process19. ChatGPT can provide references to specific questions, where the titles are non-existent, and the provided PubMed ID (PMIDs) are of unrelated papers17. The ability of chatbots to retain and reuse supplied information also impacts on confidentiality of accessed documents, a pitfall that authors, reviewers and editors should bear in mind when using such AI technologies14.Artificial hallucination is a phenomenon where a chatbot produces output that is not real. These occur when generative AI models have been trained on large amounts of unsupervised data that contain biases and misinformation. These biases are incorporated and amplified, resulting in artificial hallucinations that perpetuate false information13. At time of manuscript submission, authors should transparently disclose whether they have used AI-assisted technologies in the production of their submitted work and how these have been used. It is recommended that details such as all prompts used to generate new text, or to convert text or text prompts into tables or illustrations, be specified. Use of any AI tool  to carry out or generate analytical work, help report results (including generation of tables or figures) or writing computer codes, should be stated. These should be listed in a cover letter to the editor and their use documented in appropriate sections of the manuscript, typically in the abstract, methods and acknowledgments sections14. Authors should be able to verify the accuracy of the entire manuscript and to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including text and images produced by AI. Authors must personally ensure there is appropriate attribution of all quoted material, including full citations from original sources13.Humans are expected to be accountable for any submitted material that includes the use of AI-assisted technologies13. WAME has recently recommended that editors and reviewers should specify to authors and to each other any use of chatbots in evaluation of manuscripts and generation of reviews and correspondence. WAME has emphasised that as the adverse consequences of misinformation include potential harm to people, editors of medical journals need access to appropriate digital tools to deal with the effects of chatbots on publishing, particularly content generated or altered by AI-assisted technologies14. An important principle is that while AI tools can aid scientific research and manuscript writing, it is crucial to recognise that they should function as a supplementary aid rather than a complete substitute for human creativity6.Editors of biomedical journals should consider adopting the recent update of the ICJME (May 2023) recommendations for authorship and other aspects related to use of AI-assisted technologies for publication of biomedical papersIn summary, ChatGPT and other AI-assisted technologies are here to stay and cannot be ignored. These AI tools are able to generate highly-realistic human-like text and perform a wide range of useful language tasks with a wide range of applications. It is key for us to learn how to manage its potential pitfalls and risks. AI tools have the potential to expedite innovation in health care and can aid in promoting equity and diversity in research by overcoming language barriers. The responsible use of AI language models and transparent reporting of how these tools are used in the creation of information and publication are vital to promote and protect the credibility and integrity of medical research, and trust in medical knowledge. When using these AI tools, authors must take responsibility for the output and originality of their work, as publishers expect all content to be generated by human authors unless there is a declaration to the contrary. Educating postgraduate and undergraduate students, researchers and authors on applications and best usage of AI-assisted technologies, together with the importance of critical thinking, integrity and strict adherence to ethical principles, are key steps that need to be undertaken.


BJPsych Open has accomplished, its areas of growth and what should be our future vision for the Journal. The keyword throughout this editorial is growth, with emphasis on growth in quality, for meaningful growth can only exist with increased quality. The original remit remains the correct long-term direction for the Journal, with the important modifier ‘relevance’ added to ensure quality – a general psychiatric journal with high-quality, methodologically rigorous and relevant publications, with relevance to the advancement of clinical care, patient outcomes, the scientific literature, research and policy. During this second term, I desire to expand the editorial board to fill expertise and diversity gaps; increase editorials and commentaries highlighting specific articles and timely events with psychiatric themes; focus on thematic series driven by the editorial board; and address under-represented topics.As my second 5-year term as its editor-in-chief begins, it is important to review what  BJPsych Open. What was my vision then and what have we accomplished? To maintain our current recognition in the scientific community, to have continued growth and to ensure high-quality submissions and publications all require significant and integrated efforts by the editorial and publication teams. To have a meaningful vision statement, it is important to understand where one has come from to contextualise where one wants to go.Each editor-in-chief (EIC) has a vision when assuming the role. It is hard to realise that 5 years have now passed as I enter my second term as EIC for BJPsych Open , I am in the privileged position of once again leading a splendid team onto the field that has had a good first innings (my first term as EIC), and so it is fitting that we now plan for an even more successful second term effort, recognising what ‘worked in the first innings’ and what should be ‘maintained/strengthened/added in the second innings’.And those enlightened readers who follow the game played with a wooden bat and a red leather ball know that in test cricket the second innings is decisive. Here, as EIC of BJPsych Open and ‘the second innings.’Let us view these issues historically while addressing my plans for the future of BJPsych Open was conceived in 2014 (the first issue was published in June 2015), the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) and the Editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJPsych) recognised a key failing of print publishing – the lack of available print space to publish good-quality articles with appropriate scientific rigour. In essence, the BJPsych could focus on publishing only ‘the best of the best’. Yet what happened to those other ‘good articles’, papers that deserved to be published? Would College members have the opportunity to read – and to publish – these in a College journal? A key mission of the College is dissemination of knowledge to its members, the scientific community and the public – and the inability to publish methodologically rigorous articles ran counter to this mission. The College and the College Editor  had foresight – their solution was the creation of BJPsych Open, which matched the changing landscape of academic publishing and the creation of Plan S.5 The open access format of BJPsych Open has permitted significant growth since the Journal's inception and especially during my first 5-year term as EIC.When The fundamental element of all successful journals is a functioning editorial board. I have endeavoured to create a board based on meritocracy that is both gender neutral and representative of diverse backgrounds. Board membership is dynamic, as all board members have other obligations affecting their ability to serve on the board. I appreciate this and have focused on making the board experience collegial and enjoyable – by so doing, and by keeping an open door to all board members, the turnover of board members is minimised, and often all that is required is a brief hiatus in handling papers. To maximise editorial efficiency, along with the managing editor Anna Munks, I routinely review the productivity of handling editors and transition them accordingly. I have virtual or telephone communications with board members between board meetings, for I treasure the board, and by so doing have created an ongoing positive experience that translates into a more successful journal.4 Now, at the conclusion of my first 5-year term, I have further increased the board to 72 members (37 men and 35 women) from 20 countries, not including a recently added statistical panel. Further expansion will naturally occur to fill current subject expertise gaps and as required to address thematic series.In 2015, the founding editorial board was comprised of only seven members (five men and two women); the leadership included Professor Kamaldeep Bhui, EIC (UK), Professor Gin Malhi, Deputy Editor  and myself, Deputy Editor (USA). As noted in a previous editorial, the editorial board grew in both numbers and diversity and by the end of 2019 (2 years into my first term as EIC), the board had been expanded to 38 (17 men and 21 women) from 15 countries.BJPsych Open was conceived as a cascade journal4 – authors of methodologically sound and meaningful articles that were not accepted by BJPsych, often because of rigid print space limitations, were offered the opportunity for these articles to be transferred, reviewed and published in BJPsych Open, the new sister journal in the RCPsych–CUP portfolio . Now most submissions to BJPsych Open are independent submissions as opposed to transfer submissions; furthermore, BJPsych Open itself transfers submissions to other portfolio journals as indicated. Although BJPsych Open was not initially indexed, now it is indexed in Current Contents, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Scopus, PubMed, Embase, ProQuest and DOAJ. Further, as an open access journal, BJPsych Open has been compliant with Plan S from the start.The Journal has continued to grow since its inception. Specific productivity metrics for each volume  since I have been EIC  show sush-index ; the Journal's CiteScore . Perhaps the most widely used, but flawed, metric is the impact factor – for the impact factor can be skewed by highly cited individual articles: compare COVID-19 pandemic articles, which may be highly cited over a brief time period,6 with research articles and reviews, which may have delayed but extended citations over decades.7 Indeed, at present the most highly cited paper in BJPsych Open, with 290 citations, is the COVID-19 article ‘Anxiety, depression, traumatic stress and COVID-19-related anxiety in the UK general population during the COVID-19 pandemic'6 . Although when I took over as EIC in the autumn of 2017 I estimated ‘achieving a target impact factor of 2–3 within 5–7 years’,3BJPsych Open has witnessed a significant increase in its impact factor over the course of just 3 years: from 2.286 in 2019  to 3.209 in 2020 and 5.165 in 2021. BJPsych Open  during my first term as EIC (2018–2022) and a wider range of metrics for 2021 are given on the Journal's website .An increased number of papers published may denote journal growth but does not necessarily indicate improved quality. Several proxies may be considered: more prestigious indexing (which has occurred); growth in total annual citations (to 2654 in 2022); total citations during my five-year first term (7101 citations in 2018–2022); growth in the number of full-text articles downloaded (to >679 000 in 2022); growth in mentions as tracked by Altmetric (to >4300 in 2021); the Journal's 11 Quality can also be enhanced by paying greater attention to statistics and methodology – BJPsych Open now has a statistical panel including methodologists. Finally, quality can be enhanced by focusing on the relevance of specific submissions to meaningfully advance mental health. The true quality of BJPsych Open will not be measured by metrics but rather by the effect it has on the scientific literature, research, policy, clinical care and patient outcomes, which will only be determined over time.Further, the 5-year impact factor has correspondingly increased to 4.66. It is noteworthy that the Journal’s impact factor grew at the same time as we saw growth in the number of articles published and the median number of citations per article, all of which are suggestive of increased quality across the Journal. Quality can be enhanced by greater editorial scrutiny regarding research integrity and publication ethics – these are constantly being addressed by the editorial team and the RCPsych portfolio is publishing a series of editorials addressing these issues.www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-open/videos-and-podcasts) and a link to all collections .As an open access journal with freedom from print limitations, thematic series have been created under my tenure. Topics for thematic series are recommended both by the EIC and editorial board members and, as indicated, are interdisciplinary, with consideration of cultural and ethical issues. Thematic series are a collection of research articles, reviews, short reports, editorials and commentaries that address specific topics in detail and are created through targeted submissions selected by series lead editors and by an open call for submissions. Articles published after the release of the thematic series can be added to the collection, enhancing the experience of readers and serving to constantly update the literature. New features for these thematic series include the addition of digital content (podcasts and videos)  (Graham Thornicroft)12 – released 2019Emerald Series  13 – released 2020Cognition in Mood Disorders  14 – released 2022COVID-19, Healthcare and Healthcarers  15 – released 2022.Refugee and Asylum Mental Health  are:16Biomarkers of Dissociation 17Emergencies, Major Incidents, Terrorist Attacks and Mental Health 18Neuropsychiatry .Thematic series in progress  with editorial leads include:Human Rights Based Mental Healthcare: New Developments Non-suicidal Self-Harm Immune Dysfunction in Mental Disorders Digital Mental Health (John Torous)Mental Healthcare Economics (Judit Simon).Planned thematic series with editorial leads include:BJPsych Open remit should change with its growth and international recognition. I believe the original remit is the correct long-term direction for the Journal – a general psychiatric journal with high-quality, methodologically rigorous publications. Consider the vision themes summarised in my first editorial as EIC, which remain relative constants:3no high-quality paper that is methodologically sound, original and with clinical relevance is rejectedall specialties, subspecialties and associated fields have spacecontinues to publish a wide range of article types maintains a strong editorial board with an international basepublishes at least one thematic series annuallyremains an egalitarian journal, economically accessible for all authors who desire to publishcontinues to grow in submissions, authors, acceptances and reputationis both author friendly and highly readable.Growth is the keyword in this editorial's subheadings. A question posed is whether the original On careful reflection with especial consideration of increasing submissions during my tenure as EIC, a qualifier needs to be added to our remit to ensure increased quality and meaning of future publications, ‘relevance’. Thus, our remit now becomes ‘a general psychiatric journal with high-quality, methodologically rigorous and relevant publications, with relevance to the advancement of clinical care, patient outcomes, the scientific literature, research and policy’.There is no target impact factor for this journal – rather, an impact factor sufficient to ensure quality submissions and continued international recognition of the Journal. The emphasis in growth will be in growth of quality, for meaningful growth of the Journal can only exist in the context of increased quality. With growth there will be changes – editorial board expansion and restructuring to best handle submissions with maximal editorial board and reviewer expertise; increased editorial board and editorial office screening, to ensure that submissions adhere to journal and RCPsych portfolio policies; changes to match changes in the publishing landscape as open access and Plan S evolve.BJPsych Open is a society journal dedicated to the maximal dissemination of knowledge and will continue to be responsive to its ‘audience  as well as authors, reviewers and editorial board members concerning what should be done to further improve quality and breadth of the Journal’.4BJPsych Open published two of the first editorials addressing the global mental health response to the COVID-19 pandemic19 and mental health responses required for Ukrainian refugees.15 There will be continued focus on editorial board-driven thematic series, including interdisciplinary topics and authorship. There will be increased use of digital content for both thematic series and specific articles. Further, under-represented topics will be emphasised: advocacy, mental health in low- and middle-income countries, ethnic minorities, refugees, implementation, ethics, human rights, sport psychiatry, and arts and mental health.During my second term, the Journal will focus on increased numbers of editorials and commentaries to highlight the significance of specific articles as well as research, clinical and policy themes and to specifically address timely important events with psychiatric themes. BJPsych Open would not be possible without our authors, dedicated reviewers, editorial board members, and editorial and publishing offices. I am privileged and honoured to serve as EIC of this journal and remain thankful for the efforts of so many in making BJPsych Open a viable and increasingly important journal in the scientific literature.My vision as EIC of


Unfortunately, this kind of training program is not widely implemented at any level of scientific training.The term “peer review” often brings to mind the process by which scientific journals solicit experts to evaluate manuscripts prior to their publication. Scientists have debated the utility and value of peer review since its modern deployment in the 1970s , 3 and iWhat problems with scientific training has peer review illuminated? In our current system, many scientists gain experience with peer review by “learning on the job” when invited to review by an editor or as apprentices contributing to reviews accepted by mentors. The lack of formal training may underlie the expectation gap between what biomedical editors report wanting to see in peer reviews and what referees deliver. Editors – often leading scientists in the field – identify core problems with submitted peer reviews, including unacceptable text or tone, requests for additional experiments outside the scope or peer review guidelines of the journal, and misuse of the confidential notes to editors , 10. AddThe science of peer review suggests a path for developing training programs. Data indicate that a background in statistical or epidemiological analysis is predictive of a higher editorial rating of review quality . As a rehttps://masterclasses.nature.com/online-course-on-peer-review/16507836), but training is not mandated for manuscript reviewers, and training in study design, bias, and civility aren’t included. Some institutions offer courses on peer review through their center for teaching and learning, but courses are typically not part of required curricula. Scientific societies - like the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) - could integrate training into existing publishing mechanisms. Many societies, including ASM, offer journal-specific reviewer guidelines or educational webinars. In 2021, ASM launched the inaugural mBio Junior Editorial Board (JEB) to train early career researchers on various aspects of scientific publishing. In our first year, JEB members participated in a monthly seminar series on scientific publishing (including peer review) and conducted 2 mentored peer reviews, which were evaluated by mBio editors. In our second year, JEB members review manuscripts submitted to mBio while getting editorial feedback on review quality, process, and scope. Future directions involve scaling JEB across all ASM journals and eventually creating a comprehensive, ASM-wide program. This editorial was largely motivated by our experience with JEB - and our variable experiences with peer training groups - which led us to consider ways to improve the ASM program, the purpose of peer review, and the components that ought to be included in rigorous peer review training programs.Who should be responsible for managing peer review training? Some publishers, like Nature Publishing Group, already offer online training courses . Additionally, journal clubs serve as a platform for teaching students to evaluate and present data from manuscripts and can be adapted to introduce best practices for peer review. Incorporating peer review into scientific education may also help combat inappropriate tone and content of reviews  by providing a formal venue to teach students and early career researchers norms of professional communications and how to collaborate with editors to resolve inappropriate reviews.We propose integrating structured peer review training into coursework at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Undergraduate research fellowships and programs are widespread, and research is often a requirement to earn degree honors or distinction. Undergraduates are frequently required to read scientific articles in their courses, so instruction on peer review can provide a tangible example of the practical importance of their coursework. Publishing peer-reviewed manuscripts is a key component of graduate research and a requirement for earning a PhD in many departments, making coursework an ideal forum for teaching about the process of peer review. In addition to offering Implementation of peer review training programs by academic institutions requires buy-in from stakeholders at multiple levels. Using frameworks developed in studies on coordination and collaboration , 20, we Peer review, whether as a service to journals, in the lab, or in the classroom, can be an instrument to teach us how to think rigorously about science. Current evidence suggests major problems with peer review that shine a light on deficiencies in current educational programs. Peer review training, whether implemented by scientific societies, publishing groups, or as part of graduate education, need not operate in silos. As early career scientists, we advocate for each of these stakeholders to collaborate in fortifying the peer review process to reduce bias in publication outcomes and improve the integrity of the foundation upon which the future of science is built.


Writing this as Christmas approaches, I am completing my umpteenth Lateral Flow Test, cancelling flights as France closes its borders to Brits, and realising that the turkey I ordered for Christmas lunch is now looking somewhat on the large side. We have a horrible sense of déjà vu. While academic life was trying to get back to normal, and almost succeeding over the summer and autumn, we now have omicron strangling our social and professional lives. Despite the exasperation of this seemingly unending pandemic, I can't help feeling a certain scientific fascination at watching a disease evolve in real time, and how people gauge the risks, make decisions, assess their priorities and change their behaviour, often well ahead of any government instructions on how to behave.Evolutionary Human Sciences, despite this being the first year when we have had to charge an open access publication fee. We continue to publish on a diverse range of topics, ranging from object manipulation in wild orangutans  not only highlighted Darwin's amazing prescience, but also forced us to confront the horrible language used about race and sex in the nineteenth century. However, Darwin is not cancelled here, and we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of his ground-breaking ‘Expression of Emotions’ with another special collection this coming year. We are also building a collection on gendered conflict in the family, and another on evolutionary biomechanics and human locomotion. I am very excited about all of these. I am ever grateful to all our editors, authors, reviewers and publishers for their invaluable contributions of time and thought to our journal.However, our research goes on, and I am delighted you have continued to submit some of it to For 2022 I have decided to introduce a new category of paper, Perspectives. Several journals now have this format, but few are in our field. Perspectives articles enable the discussion of ideas from a personal viewpoint, more so than might be appropriate for a review or research paper. The aim is to air new ideas and opinions, challenge old ones and stimulate debate. That could be taken as an excuse to wax lyrical about hypotheses that are completely untestable (which is why I did not introduce this format sooner). It is nonetheless true that many personal ideas can be well worth airing, in ways that do not always fall into the remit of research reports or reviews. Apologies if you submitted something ‘perspectives-like’ before which I rejected because we did not have this format at that time. However, do contact me first before you submit, to give an idea of what the nature of your argument will be.If you want your paper to be accepted, I just want to alert you to a few beefs of mine. I am not a fan of acronyms (even though I fully admit I may sometimes have used them). They annoy readers, mostly because we cannot quite remember what they mean, unless they are very simple and already familiar, but also they sometimes can solidify assumptions about categorisations or processes that cannot be made  and a very happy New Year.


I have taken over the charge as new Editor in Chief since August 2023. I embark upon this new journey with great pride, enthusiasm and sense of responsibility. I am a full-time academician working as Professor of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery at Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, involved in patient care, teaching and research for the last 30 years.The JOBCR has become a reputed journal over a short span of 10 years with nurturing, dedication and hard work of Dr Divya Mehrotra. Unfortunately, sudden demise of Dr Divya has left a great void which is difficult to fill. Lately there has been certain issues with the decision-making process because of lack of her guidance, which I definitely intend to sort out.My efforts will be to take this journal to greater heights by attracting and publishing quality research, thereby improving citation score and ranking of journal. The scope of this journal is quite vast therefore, to bring more representation I intend to bring new set of section editors, editorial team members and reviewers onboard to cover diverse topics. I also intend to start regular editorials, invited reviews, commentary for important articles and publish special issues on current topics. The aim is not only to improve impact factor of the journal but to have an impact in the lives of our patients by publishing latest clinical research, new innovations and cutting-edge research.There is one more major change which has happened to the journal i.e., it has become gold open access. There are advantages of open access technology in the form of free access for wider unrestricted dissemination. Now the published articles can be accessed instantly without any charges by everyone across the world. There are also special reduced publication charges for low-income countries so that the expense on publishing an article should not become prohibitive.Rapid turnaround time, efficiency and transparency will be my work mantras. This all cannot be achieved without the active support of editorial team members. I seek active support from all the members to achieve these objectives and to make the journal number one destination for publishing quality research.


The Lancet Psychiatry’s Editorial Board Development Programme. It is important to make public commitments to gender balance, for example as part of a diversity pledge, with specific targets, and to collect and report data with regular updates. Gender balance should be an integral part of information templates in manuscript handling systems, such as asking authors and peer reviewers to consider women when recommending alternative peer reviewers. Where relevant, journal editors can also consider gender balance in their use of images, cover art, podcast or interview subjects, profiles, news and features, and social media content.Journal editors can promote gender equality in various ways. The main ones are consideration of gender when inviting editorial board members, peer reviewers, and authors of solicited opinion pieces or reviews. As in many areas, the problem can be that the pool of suitable women is perceived to be small and the same women are asked to perform multiple tasks in addition to their academic and clinical duties. Journal editors need to seek women who are less well known but competent for the task required. To increase the pool of qualified candidates, editors should promote training using existing resources, such as online peer reviewer courses, or develop in-house initiatives, such as None Declared


The editors are delighted to celebrate 10 years of its publication through an upcoming “10th Anniversary Year.” In our capacity as the current team of Executive Editors since January 2023, we acknowledge and thank the Founding Editor‐in‐Chief, Sue Wray, and first Deputy Editor and second Editor‐in‐Chief, Thomas Kleyman, the co‐owning Societies American Physiological Society (APS) and The Physiological Society (TPS), the publisher Wiley, and other prior Editors and Editorial Board members for their collective inspiration and energy in starting Physiological Reports and growing its scope and reputation over the last decade. Separate Anniversary Editorials by Sue Wray and Tom Kleyman will provide their personal perspectives and insights into the early years. In following months, Editorials will also be contributed by several Editors representative of the APS and TPS transferring journals.Physiological Reports was established as the first joint, and the first Open Access, journal of APS and TPS, with a mission to publish sound science in basic and translational physiology. Since the beginning, the journal has handled manuscripts transferred from APS, TPS and Wiley supporter journals as well as manuscripts received by conventional direct submission. As a fully Gold Open Access journal, over the last 10 years Physiological Reports has developed global outreach in the communication of physiological research. Downloads of full‐text articles have increased each year, and data from 2022 show download activity for full‐text articles published in Physiological Reports in most countries around the world. Between January 2021 and October 2022, published papers originated from 45 countries and, in 2023 to date, publications have originated from over 40 countries. The sound science mission of Physiological Reports has also proved compatible with excellent quality and robust citation: Individual papers achieve high citation, and the journal has achieved a new 2022 2‐year Journal Impact Factor of 2.5 and a CiteScore of 4.Drosophila, among others. In vitro physiological models have expanded beyond conventional cell lines and primary cell strains to include stem cells, induced‐pluripotent stem cells, organoids and other “mini‐organ” forms of cell culture.It is apparent that authors have appreciated Physiological Reports as a journal of broad scope. The diversity of disciplines of publications is exemplified by the top‐cited articles published in each year Table , and we https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/2051817x/about/author‐guidelines/methods_in_physiology). We will also feature an expanded schedule of targeted Calls for Papers, starting with a Call for Papers related to the theme of “Exercise and Diet” . Information about all Calls for Papers can be found at the journal website .The 10th Anniversary Year will run from December 1, 2023, to November 30, 2024, during which new anniversary logos will provide extra visibility to this landmark time, to associated journal activities, and to articles published during this year. In addition to the special Editorials mentioned above, we will celebrate the first decade of Physiological Reports with new or enhanced publication activities. Over the first 10 years, the focus has been on publishing original research articles, case reports, and occasional review articles. We have now set up Methods articles as a distinct category and look forward to future high quality submissions in this category . To celebrate the first 10 years, we are inaugurating a “Paper of the Year” award that will recognize the research papers of highest sound science quality published at Physiological Reports. Original research papers with single first authors will be ranked by the executive editors in a two‐step process. The first award will be based on research papers published in the year December 2022 to November 2023, with the winner to be announced early in 2024.Physiological Reports supports the physiological research community, especially early‐career researchers, through poster or short talk awards made at major conferences , with the winning articles to be published in Physiological Reports. Further details of this exciting initiative will be disseminated in early 2024. We also plan to enhance the publication of invited Review articles, not only to emphasize major research areas of publications over the last 10 years and highlight current topics, but also to address emerging or expanding areas of physiology. For example, we are interested to feature the roles of new technologies in driving new research approaches, or pathophysiological conditions that present growing challenges, such as the increasing physiological stresses posed by the climate crisis and air pollution.The vitality of a journal is driven not only by Editors' initiatives but also by the community it serves. We look forward to engaging with existing and new authors, readers and reviewers through these plans, and to ensuring the continued success and development of Physiological Reports into its second decade and beyond. Information about the aforementioned initiatives will be presented at the journal's website and through social media communications.No funding was associated with the preparation of this Editorial.There are no conflicts of interest to declare.The authors form the Executive Editorial team of Physiological Reports and were blinded from reviewing or making decisions for the manuscript. An alternate editor oversaw the manuscript process for this article.


Structural Heart Journal, one that in a sense represents a new beginning. We have just completed 5 years of existence, have established our unique role as the only journal devoted to structural cardiovascular disease and the heart team, and have become the official journal of both the Cardiovascular Research Foundation and the Heart Valve Society. With this issue we join hands with a new publisher, Elsevier, who is a giant in the field of medical publishing. This new relationship will offer many opportunities to expand the scope and reach of the journal. In addition, with this issue we enter the rapidly increasing world of open-access publications. Until now the journal has had a sizeable but limited circulation to all registrants of the “Transcatheter” meetings  organized by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Going forward as an open-access journal, our contents will be available to anyone, anywhere with any interest in structural heart disorders. Of course, as an open-access journal, our financial model will be different, and rather than a subscription fee, authors will be asked to support the cost of publishing their article. We fully recognize the issues involved in making this transition and have taken steps to make it smooth. The publication fees will be held to the lowest level possible, and funds are available to offset the publication fees for authors without financial capability on a priority basis. The transition to open access is in keeping with the accelerating trend in medical publishing to make new information available to as many individuals as soon as possible without the barrier of a financial outlay. It is anticipated that this trend will continue to grow and ultimately become the standard for medical publications. So we welcome everyone to join us in this exciting transition; bookmark the Structural Heart Journal webpage, read our original research and review articles, and do submit your interesting material on any aspect of structural heart disease.This issue represents a major transition for The authors have no funding to report.The author reports no conflict of interest.