The director of the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI), Guy Rouleau, discusses the recent announcement that the MNI will be completely committed to open science. Treatments for the diseases of the brain and nervous system are one of the most compelling unmet medical needs of our time. At the MNI, we see the most complex of neurological and neurosurgical cases. For many of these patients, we have not been able to offer any new treatments for decades. The technology available to us today can enable the scientific community to share information and speed up discoveries. Seeing these patients and knowing the talented researchers we have, it makes sense to share as much information as possible.In establishing itself as the world’s first academic institution operating fully on the principles of Open Science, the MNI is realizing a vision in which early-stage drug research is open, borderless, and global; world-class institutions around the world share expertise and collaborate on fundamental discoveries; and new treatments and even cures for devastating neurological diseases are within this generation’s reach, promising enormous human and economic benefits for the healthcare system and economy.To achieve these goals, Open Science at the MNI will be driven along five key axes: Open Access, Open Data, Open Intellectual Property (IP), Open Biobank, and Open Commercialization. That is, publishing research results without restriction; sharing experimental data freely with institutions around the world; refraining from pursuing patents on MNI-generated discoveries; freely sharing biological samples and other resources from the MNI Biobank , within the limits of supply and respecting patient confidentiality; and developing business models to bring open-source discoveries, including new medicines, to the marketplace.From its inception, The MNI’s singular mission has been to deploy scientific research in the service of patients, families, and society. We see Open Science as a means to expand the impact of our research by sharing it with a global community of like-minded scientists.We hope that the benefits will include a better understanding of the mechanisms of neurological diseases, new therapeutic targets, and ultimately new treatments for our patients. We believe that increasing openness in research and operating along principles of collaboration will improve transparency, reliability, and the impact of research to accelerate the pace of discoveries that could help patients around the world who have devastating neurological diseases and disorders. By allowing researchers from around the world with many different interests and expertise to access our data, research will progress exponentially for the benefit of patients.The MNI will also set a precedent for other research institutes in adopting the principles of Open Science, leading in the development of new policies and tools required to drive a faster and more complete exchange of scientific knowledge. The hope is that we can share our experience with the wider scientific community and serve as a case study and blueprint that other scientific institutions can follow in adopting the principles of Open Science.In the last two years, we have hired more than a dozen new researchers and physicians; we are in the midst of a great rejuvenation. We predict that our new Open Science policy will increase—and already has increased—our capacity to attract highly talented researchers and trainees who are highly committed to and engaged in the Open Science philosophy.http://www.thehumanbrain.info/brain/index.php), and our scientists have developed software and image-analysis platforms that are open access and set a gold standard.The MNI has a long history of Open Science, particularly in brain imaging. We have one of the three largest brain-imaging centers in the world. Researchers around the globe use the Atlas of the Human Brain in Stereotaxic Space  is to collect biological material as well as clinical and imaging information from patients and research participants in order to enable cutting-edge research projects that will advance our understanding of neurological diseases. Aggregating collections of material and data from patients who have neurological diseases, some of which are rare, will permit investigations into the fundamental molecular alterations underlying patient disease; permit discovery of biomarkers to improve patient diagnosis; and permit tissue-based translational research that will allow us to develop new treatments that can alter the natural history of these devastating diseases.The C-BIGR will also empower patients by allowing them to participate indirectly in research aimed at advancing our understanding of their diseases.Our patients perceive this initiative as extremely important and crucial and are highly supportive, not only for themselves but mainly for the generations to come that would benefit from the extraordinary outcomes of such a culture and new way of doing research.Over 90% of patients agree to participate.The first challenge is to be able to make meaningful data accessible, not just raw data. The second challenge will certainly be building the right infrastructure to support our community in achieving this. A third challenge that we foresee is the ability to deploy mechanisms to measure, increase the impact of, and fully acknowledge our researchers’ and trainees’ contributions in the Open Science context. A fourth and obvious challenge is the shift of mindset implied by this new policy that will allow people to work more collectively in a community, both at an individual level for each researcher in their own lab and at an institutional level.We are currently working on deploying the full suite of tools and platforms that constitute the support infrastructure for Open Science. Our Open Science policy and its guiding principles are now integrated into all contract agreements with our partners, both public and private.On the legal side, issues regarding third parties’ existing intellectual property rights on techniques or methods used by our researchers in their labs—for instance, the existing international legal battle on CRISPR technology—may actually represent legal limitations or hurdles to the confirmation of new partnerships with industry.


It is certainly intriguing to observe how little we know about the research that has beencarried out in Brazil, even in our particular field of interest. While clinicalneuroscientists may have a reasonable knowledge of the scientific production of theirfellow clinicians, they are frequently unaware of the contributions by basicneuroscientists; and vice-versa. The main reason for this may lie in the lack ofadequate dissemination of our scientific output. Even papers that have been published injournals with high impact factor in each specific area rarely break the virtual barrierthat exists between different areas of the same field. This phenomenon almost certainlyoccurs in other developing countries, and to justify it by assuming that researchersonly know their specific area does not fully explain the issue, since everyone knows theeminent international basic and clinical researchers as well as the papers they publishin their fields of expertise. In this case, the virtual barrier is probably broken bythe very high impact factor of the journals and through astute use of the increasedopportunity for diffusion that the authors and their colleagues have open to them.Dementia & Neuropsychologia, besides reviews andoriginal manuscripts on clinical research, also contains papers from basic research,making clear that the scientific community recognizes the importance of thispropagation, not only toward due acknowledgment in their own country, which is doubtlessimportant, but primarily because it is necessary in establishing and multiplyingcooperative studies. The link between basic and clinical researchers is also one of thekey objectives of the organizers of the forthcoming Meeting of Researchers on AlzheimerDisease and Related Disorders, to be held in Ouro Preto, December 6 to 8, 2007, whichhopefully will represent a milestone in our scientific production in this field.This second issue of Dementia & Neuropsychologia has been receiving original manuscripts frommany Brazilian centers, demonstrating the confidence held in our Editorial Board, and wewish to acknowledge this essential support and to reciprocate with the diffusion of thepapers, and future indexation of the journal. In order to continue to receive neworiginal manuscripts it is felt fitting that the editorial principles of Dementia& Neuropsychologia be made even more transparent. When receiving amanuscript our reviewers are provide with the framework partially reproduced below:Dementia& Neuropsychologia is not yet indexed, it is possible that areasonable proportion of the submitted papers will not yet be of highscientific quality before the peer-review process.Consider every manuscript as a candidate for publication – As Manuscripts can be improved by the peer-review process – A good reviewershould indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, and maymention how the study could have been designed to reach a firmer conclusion,but should also try to give instruction on how to improve the quality of themanuscript using the available data, or data that are easily accessible bythe author(s). Orientation on re-writing each section of the manuscript maybe included. Guidance on rearranging the statistical analyses is veryimportant and should be incorporated when required.Dementia & Neuropsychologia – Irony oracidic criticisms should be avoided. Reviewers should write “as aknowledgeable, courteous colleague advising the author(s)”.1 This is particularlyimportant for countries, or for areas of study, where there is no solidscientific tradition.Stimulate authors to advance in their research careers and to submit furthermanuscripts to 1Avoid vague proclamations; cite the appropriate papers – For example, ifthere are other papers that deserve citation in the text, the reviewershould cite them. If the manuscript is not novel, the work that itreplicates should be cited.2 As is often said, few people will read thewhole paper, but many will read the title, and if they eventually reach theabstract, they will go on to the conclusions. The conclusion(s) should beclearly supported by the data.Every part of the manuscript, from title to conclusion(s) may warrant andreceive attention – The title, abstract and conclusions of a manuscript areextremely important. A good title constitutes the smallest number of wordsthat adequately defines the content of a paper.Comment on spelling and grammar only if they compromise the scientificaccuracy of the manuscript – A final review of the use of the Englishlanguage will be available for every accepted manuscript.Finally, one of the main roles of this journal is to bring to light papers ofhigh scientific quality that are not well known either because they havebeen published in Portuguese, Spanish or other languages, or because theyfocus on Third World populations. The reviewers should urge the authors tocite such papers, when appropriate.Ricardo NitriniEditor-in-Chief


Dear Readers,EJNMMI and Annals of Nuclear Medicine are introducing a new section that brings a review of the relevant articles published last year in the respective journals. Written by guest key experts, this section is intended to offer the readers a condensed global view on the high-quality research work that has been published in the other journal during the last period. We hope that this new journal feature will strengthen scientific cooperation between Europe and Japan and will be interesting and informative to the entire readership.The EJNMMI Editor-in-ChiefIgnasi Carrió, Annals of Nuclear Medicine Editor-in-ChiefSeigo Kinuya,


As I write this Editorial on October 25, I realize it will be the last document submitted through the Public Knowledge Project (PKP) system and published by Multimed. Beginning October 26, we will accept submissions and resubmissions within the Wiley/Electronic Journal Press systems through the links provided in the Announcements and in the Section Editor/Author/Reviewer corresponding emails. We intend to keep the PKP system live through December 31, but it will be closed down on January 1 and replaced by the new Wiley/EJP site. Please help us by completing any reviews that you may have been asked to do. By December 31 we must not have any articles left in the PKP system.Sometime ago, I was asked to write a support letter for Multimed to be used in a packet to prospective clients. This is what came to mind (some information is updated):To whom it may concern:In the late summer of 2003, I began a worldwide search for a unique publishing partner. The Journal of Applied Clinical Physics  had completed four years of publication, but was in financial crisis. It was my responsibility to salvage the situation. The JACMP occupies a publication space that bridges medicine and science. We needed a publisher with special talents and skills, one that was familiar with the exacting standards of archival academic medical publication. Our high‐cost traditional publisher was not able to meet our requirements to lower costs to match our revenue. We needed a publisher able to maintain the high quality of our publication, but also able to publish on a cost‐effective basis.My search led me to evaluate over two dozen potential publishing partners. My criteria for evaluation included:An established publisher with a 10‐year‐plus track record of excellence in medical publicationA publisher that was willing to embrace the open‐access publication revolutionA publisher that could work with open‐access, open‐source publication software toolsA publisher able to provide copy editing and layout services that matched our existing publication modelA publisher that offered customized services to preserve our advertising modelA publisher that provided customized journal management and configuration toolsA publisher that was able to provide services at a cost that matched our revenuesAt the completion of my evaluation, Multimed stood above all other alternatives as the single publisher most able to meet our publication requirements. That was in September of 2003, so let me share with you what has happened since. Based on the number of published pages, JACMP has grown an average of 20% per year every year through 2016. Currently, the JACMP has become the world's leading clinical medical physics academic journal and enjoys an impressive Impact Factor of 1.444.My friends at Multimed are highly skilled and experienced in their craft, timely in their responsiveness, gracious, and utterly professional in everything that they do. In every respect, I value my relationship with the extraordinary members of the publication team at Multimed. While the future of the JACMP was once in doubt, it is now an international archival medical journal of the highest quality. Multimed deserves substantial credit for this accomplishment. I am confident they can make your publication team as successful as we are with the JACMP.Sincere Best Wishes,Michael D. Mills, Ph.D., Editor‐in‐Chief, JACMP, 2004–2007, 2013‐presentJACMP's success. So many thanks to Jill, Amanda, Laura, Heather, Patricia, Trudi and Sharon. Together we have helped millions of cancer patients and it was a pleasure to partner with you.Leaving Multimed is bittersweet, as they have been an instrumental part of This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.


Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine (MRM) is changing, as new Editors-in Chief we are pleased to introduce the new MRM to our readers and authors.MRM history dates back to 2006, still a young Journal but with the aim to become a major player in the scientific field of respiratory diseases.MRM has taken long strides towards even more prestigious goals and it holds now a distinguished position among the scientific respiratory journals.Since then, MRM has become the official journal of the Italian Respiratory Society (SIP/IRS) and according to the vision of SIP/IRS will address the different aspects of respiratory diseases with an interdisciplinary approach, aiming to fulfil the gap between specialists of different disciplines in the management and treatment of the respiratory patient.In 2016 MRM with new sections and new editorial initiatives with a special attention to a further improvement of the selection of papers.The new beginning of our Journal starts from a new and dedicated Editorial Board that will help us to define a new profile of Research Letters that will cover papers with promising data, preliminary results and pivotal studies, with a special attention to young researchers works.We plan to add a section dedicated to ad hoc Editors who will be responsible of the single issue that will include review articles and research papers.Furthermore, we are preparing a list of special issues of the Journal dedicated to specific hot topics with MRM will publish thematic series, commissioning manuscripts from high level researchers in different specialties to underline the multidisciplinary vision of MRM.Finally, We realise that an open access journal has some advantages, e.g. papers accessible online immediately upon publication without subscription charges or registration barriers, and some disavantages, e.g. article processing charges.We are working together with the SIP/IRS to support the processing charges with the aim to promote the publication of high level papers from young researchers.MRM will reach its aims and a new important standing in the panorama of scientific publications.Any new beginning requires intensive efforts but we are confident that with the enthusiasm of our new Editorial Board, the great dedication of our publisher and the support of our readers and authors,


The publication of robust scientific articles is the most important mission for editors. Editors should bear in mind that their selections can contribute to the progress of science and their selections should be shared with all relevant parties. We cannot deny that skepticism is a step toward advancement. To resist established concepts, a pioneer may face much resistance. New findings should be proven by experiments and debates that can be performed on the basis of evidence. Reviewers are selected from a specific field. As those in the reviewers’ pool are respected in their fields, their reviews are generally logical and objective. Thus, their reviews have been of great assistance for the editors’ decisions. Thus, why do reviewers matter?Recently, ethical publication has been stressed because of scientific scandals. Duplicated publications and the unauthorized inclusion of authors’ lists are further examples of misconduct . These aScientific Reports evaluate the novelty of submissions in the publisher’s independent department. The journal’s reviewers are asked to evaluate only scientific soundness. This is important progress for the peer review process.As far as it can be surmised, there is no official process for screening reviewers’ misdeeds, and there has been no classification of reviewers’ misconduct. What kinds of reviewers’ mistakes are possible? Historically, many important scientific articles have been rejected for publication because of reviewers’ opinions . Most ofMost journals adopt the peer review process and require multiple reviewers for the final decision to publish. If two reviewers recommend an article for publication and one reviewer rejects it, what kind of decision is possible by the editor? What happens if the opposite situation occurs? Can the scientific facts be proven by democratic vote? This depends on the journal’s policy. Most journals require the agreement of the reviewers for the acceptance of an article. If one reviewer has a different opinion, the article may enter an eternal cycle of reviews. In such cases, the authors may seek other journals to avoid any delay in their publication. This is stressful and a waste of time for the authors.At this point, the editor’s role becomes important. The editor should not decide the fate of an article in accordance with the reviewers’ opinions. The publisher, Springer, provides some guidelines for poor reviews. If the review process is too immediate after an article is received, the reviewer may not read the article carefully. Illogical reviews may be caused by the improper selection of reviewers. The current level of science is highly segmented. Accordingly, the gross classification of science makes it difficult to select proper reviewers. Some reviewers request the inclusion of their own articles as references to improve their own citation records . AlthougMaxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery respects every submission, and we are concerned about irrational reviews. For a fair review process, all reviews are carefully screened by the editors. Even if a reviewer rejects an article, it may not ultimately be rejected. If the level of the review does not meet our journal’s criteria, the editor may send the article to another reviewer. Although the majority opinion on an article is generally respected, minority reports may also be considered. The editor has the right and the responsibility for the final decision. Accordingly, the editor is mainly responsible for each publication.


An orientation in basic notions of research, statistics and dataanalysis seemed to be necessary, giving the authors greater confidence when writingtheir manuscripts.To our great satisfaction, we can realize that in each edition, a greater adherence andawareness of the importance in master basic rules for quality publications by ourauthors.This is one of the objectives of the BJCVS, as well as educate, teach and encourageresearches in our community.Taking advantage of the Congress, we also had the annual meeting of the Editorial Boardof the BJCVS, held on April 21, 2017. Several issues were discussed, following the mainmotto of the Board: the participation of the BJCVS young team, showing the resultsachieved in one year of work, which certifies we are on the right track, investing inthe youth, sharing actions, and exchanging experiences with the new, with thefuture.Today, the BJCVS has a team of young collaborators, from the Junior Editor to the teamthat manages the Blog and our social networks.They could increase the accesses of BJCVS in a short period of time, sharing texts ofexcellent quality, with varied current subjects, promoting reading and knowledge.The BJCVS, along with the SBCCV, will continue to invest and encourage the education ofall associates, academics, residents and surgeons, showing that Cardiovascular Surgeryhas a consolidated present and future due to the professionals' quality who performit.Besides the success achieved by this event, activity that shows the vitality of ourSociety, we also want to refer to the evolution of the BJCVS as the vehicle that everytwo months shows the scientific production of our associates, and from the national andinternational authors, more and more frequent in our pages.The BJCVS improves in every edition, a reason of great pride for our entire community,showing that we can surpass ourselves even while experiencing periods of profoundpolitical, economic and social crisis in our country.Growing during crises is a task for personalities endowed with determination andcharacter, capable of believing in the transforming capability we own.It is encouraging to see that even in this atmosphere, we overcome ourselves, asdemonstrated by the insertion of the BJCVS in the international scope.To publish more quality work and to increase the citation of BJCVS articles, we have sentto all those who submit manuscripts to our journal, whether they are accepted articlesor not, a message encouraging them to send other articles, besides emphatically askingthem to cite the articles of the BJCVS in all their publications.We have had very positive results, as we can see, among others, in the correspondence ofan author from Uruguay, reproduced below."Dear Prof. Domingo, BraileI appreciate your letter very much. We will re-write the manuscripttrying to fulfill all the reviewer comments.We are a very active group who have constant and frequent publications.Due to your letter and with the intention of strengthening the BJCVS Icommit myself to increase the number of manuscripts to yourjournal.We consider the Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery an idealjournal to distribute results from South American regarding CardiovascularSurgery.Sincerely yours,Victor Dayan".We present below the BJCVS performance from January 1 to May 31, 2017, demonstrating how,step by step, we are becoming the leading publication of our specialty, throughout theSouthern Hemisphere.Total articles received: 162 of 14 countries.Countries from which we received articles: Brazil; China; India; Iran; Jordan; Pakistan;Portugal; Saudi Arabia; Serbia; Switzerland; Turkey; United Kingdom of Great Britain;Northern Ireland .Regarding the categories of manuscripts, we also had, among others: 110 originalarticles, 20 case reports and 17 review articles .Showing the rigor with which Reviewers, Associate Editors and Editor-in-Chief have beenconducting the evaluation of the articles, among the 162 manuscripts received, only 30were accepted, with an 80% rejection rate!Twelve were accepted directly at this time because they proceed from the former GN1platform, where they were exhaustively evaluated by our reviewers and AssociateEditors.The facts that contributed to this high rejection rate were the low quality of the works,and the almost total rejection of the Case Reports, which add few knowledge, and areharmful to the Impact Factor .We can say with certainty that we are on the right track!I would like to commend the tireless dedication of the Associate Editors, Reviewers, andthe support team who spare no efforts, promoting the BJCVS to occupy the prominent placeit deserves. But this would be impossible without the unrestricted support of the SBCCVDirectory, and Associates, who always did their best to help us.Have a great reading.Kind regards,Domingo M. Braile1Editor-in-Chief - BJCVS


The launch of this new journal is the natural outgrowth of several recent macro trends in our specialty.It is our great pleasure to introduce a new publication devoted exclusively to diseases of the posterior segment of the eye Since its creation as a subspecialty more than 50 years ago , the fieThe goal of IJRV is to provide up-to-date, accurate, and easily understandable information to our readership and to contribute to the body of scholarly work in the area of retina and vitreous. The journal will present original articles on new approaches to diagnosis and treatment that may impact clinical practice. As part of this vision, our aim is for IJRV to focus on articles that directly impact the clinician’s ability to treat patients, and will include special topics of interest such as imaging of the retina, choroid and vitreous especially innovations in optical coherence tomography (OCT) and other imaging systems, small-gauge vitrectomy, retinal detachment repair, chromovitrectomy, electroretinography, microperimetry, other functional tests, intraocular tumors, retinal pharmacotherapy & drug delivery, diabetic retinopathy & other vascular diseases and age-related macular degeneration & other macular entities –5.The peer-review process involves two Editors-in-Chief, seven Associate Editors, and a Board composed of over 50 outstanding international experts in the field of retina . All manFor the science of retina, existing journals serve the field very well and published important research. We hope to supplement the existing journals with a different format. Our aim is to bring together diverse areas of research in retina and vitreous with three novel approaches. Firstly, IJRV will be entirely web based with paper based copies only by request, although PDF of articles will be available through the website. Secondly, IJRV will be an open access journal, which means access to its content with no subscription barriers. Third, initially we will be fortunate to be supported by the Brazilian Retina and Vitreous Society, which is covering the costs of publication so that authors do not need to pay an article processing chargeWith these online, open access characteristics, IJRV intends to allow timely publication and broad dissemination of research to a global audience of ophthalmologists, retinal specialists, retina-interested physicians, and trainee physicians. As electronic and digital communication allows rapid exchange of ideas and information, while discoveries are made continuously and following experimentation and analysis, research should be disseminated immediately . With thWhile this journal expects to be one of the pre-eminent international publications, it also serves as the representative journal for the Brazilian Retina and Vitreous Society. When the Brazilian ophthalmologists Joviano Rezende Filho, Luiz Assumpção Osório, Francisco Mais, Sérgio Cunha, and Christiano Barsante met in September 7th 1977, they knew the field of retina deserved a new society to enable discussion and scientific progress in retina. At that time, they organized the first Brazilian retinal meeting - a course with Prof. Charles Schepens that involved around 250 ophthalmologists in Rio de Janeiro. From there the BRVS was founded in 1977 with the mission to stimulate discussion and scientific progress in retina in Brazil. BRVS is now composed of around 900 dedicated active members fascinated by the field of retina and vitreous.Since its inception, the BRVS and its members have actively participated in international symposia and published scientific articles in important medical journals thereby assisting in the progress of the area of research. For the past few years many BRVS members have worked very hard to enable development of a new Journal and to insert the society in the global network of retinal research. This effort resulted in the partnership with BioMed Central to launch IJRV. The BRVS and its partners are also proud to join the open access era by publishing a journal for the great field of retina.In summary, we hope that IJRV will serve as a vehicle for bringing together multidisciplinary perspectives, research and initiatives from around the globe who are interested in advancing the field of retina. We would welcome your comments on the articles and other work published in the journal. As Co-Editors-in-Chief, together with our international Editorial Board, we are committed to making this journal a success, and your support is welcome and appreciated.International Journal of Retina and Vitreous.IJRV realizes the importance of indexing databases  and will have the Journal submitted to those services as soon as possible. We intend to have the journal registered with the Directory of Open Access Journals, and cited by PubMed and other search engines in the very near future. On behalf of the Editors and Editorial Board members, welcome to the


Although the peer review process is believed to ensure scientific rigor, enhance research quality, and improve manuscript clarity, many investigators are concerned that the process is too slow, too expensive, too unreliable, and too static. In this feasibility study, we sought to survey corresponding authors of recently published clinical research studies on the speed and efficiency of the publication process.Web-based survey of corresponding authors of a 20% random sample of clinical research studies in MEDLINE-indexed journals with Ovid MEDLINE entry dates between December 1 and 15, 2016. Survey addressed perceived manuscript importance before first submission, approximate first submission and final acceptance dates, and total number of journal submissions, external peer reviews, external peer reviewers, and revisions requested, as well as whether authors would have considered publicly sharing their manuscript on an online platform instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal.n = 64, returned with an away from office message n = 70, or were changed/incorrect n = 15), leaving 1604 respondents, of which 337 completed the survey (21.0%). Respondents and non-respondents were similar with respect to study type and publication journals’ impact factor, although non-respondent authors had more publications (p = 0.03). Among respondents, the median impact factor of the publications’ journal was 2.7 (interquartile range (IQR), 2.0–3.6) and corresponding authors’ median h-index and number of publications was 9  and 27 , respectively. The median time from first submission to journal acceptance and publication was 5 months  and 7 months , respectively. Most respondents  rated the importance of their research as a 4 or 5  prior to submission. Median number of journal submissions was 1 , external peer reviews was 1 , external peer reviewers was 3 , and revisions requested was 1 . Sharing manuscripts to a public online platform, instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal, would have been considered by 55.2% (n = 186) of respondents.Of 1780 surveys distributed, 27 corresponding authors opted out or requested that we stop emailing them and 149 emails failed  contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. In the scientific community, there is enormous pressure to publish as often and as quickly as possible––preferably in the highest impact peer-reviewed journals. The publication of a scientific manuscript is often considered the final stage of the research process, initiated once a project is complete and ready for peer judgment; it involves manuscript preparation, peer review, revision, and in many cases, re-submission to multiple journals before acceptance. Although the peer review process is believed to ensure scientific rigor, enhance research quality, and improve manuscript clarity, many investigators are concerned that the process is too slow , 2, too Although there is a growing interest among the scientific community in increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research , little In this feasibility study, our objective was to pilot a survey of corresponding authors of recently published clinical research studies in order to quantify the speed and efficiency of the broader publication process, including the history of prior submissions and reviews and the time from first submission to final publication. We were specifically interested in whether a diverse set of corresponding authors of clinical research studies would respond to an online survey in sufficient numbers.We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a sample of investigators who published clinical research studies in MEDLINE-indexed biomedical journals with Ovid MEDLINE entry dates between December 1, 2016 and December 15, 2016. These entry dates were selected to help minimize any recall bias and to ensure that the author contact information provided in the manuscript was up-to-date. MEDLINE searches were conducted through Ovid . After mapping the tree for the term “Clinical Study,” we selected the terms “Clinical Trial,” “Observational Study,” and “Meta-Analysis.” Additional custom limits and specific search terms for observational studies are included in the Additional file We randomly selected a 20% sample of the 10,631 articles identified through the Ovid MEDLINE search. Two investigators  reviewed the titles and abstracts of all potential articles to exclude all non-clinical and non-research publications .observational or other study, clinical trial, or systematic review and/or meta-analysis . All uncertainties were discussed in detail, and a third reviewer (JSR) resolved any remaining discrepancies.Information cataloged routinely by Ovid MEDLINE was used to determine the journal name, author(s) names, DOI number, date and country of publication, and title. Based on the abstract and/or introduction, each eligible article was then classified as an is Table . The firIn January 2017, we sent all potential survey respondents an email describing the purpose of the study, requesting their participation, and providing a link to the survey. Authors were informed that the survey should take less than 5 min. Four follow-up requests were sent by email over the course of February 2017. Although invitation to participate did not reference any specific study hypotheses, authors were informed that participation may provide information about the scientific process. Participation was completely voluntary and participants were informed of an opportunity to win one of five $100 gift certificates for Amazon. All internet-based responses were collected using a web-based survey platform  .The design of our eight-item survey was informed by previously published surveys , 8, a reWe asked authors to rate the potential importance (significance) of their manuscript as a contribution to the biomedical literature .We asked authors to select the approximate dates (month and year) when they first submitted the manuscript to any journal and when the manuscript was accepted for publication. We asked authors to specify (approximately): the total number of (1) journal submissions prior to acceptance, (2) journals that sent the manuscript for external peer review, (3) external peer reviewers that reviewed the manuscript across all submissions to all journals, and (4) journals that requested revisions to the manuscript.We used a yes/no question to ascertain whether authors would have considered disseminating their research using a public online platform instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal to be published, assuming a situation in which sharing the manuscript online would provide the same amount of academic credit as a publication in a peer-reviewed journal.To compare characteristics of survey respondents and non-respondents, we used chi-squared tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests for continuous variables, using two-sided tests with a type I error level of 0.05. We then conducted descriptive analyses of the main respondent characteristics, journal details, and survey domains. Considering that the corresponding authors were asked to report the approximate month and year of first submission and acceptance, we recorded all dates as the first day of the corresponding month. After approximating the times from first submission to journal acceptance and publication, we removed all observations where there was evidence of potentially incorrect reporting . Data were analyzed using SAS version 9.4  and R .n = 64, returned with an away from office message n = 70, or were changed/incorrect n = 15), leaving 1604 eligible respondents, of which 337 submitted a survey (response rate of 21.0%) , slightly higher h-indices (p = 0.07), and were more likely to have non-institutional or Gmail/Yahoo/Hotmail/Aol email addresses (p = 0.003)  Table .Table 2Cn = 247, 73.3%) in biomedical journals with a median impact factor of 2.7 (interquartile range (IQR), 2.0–3.6; Fig. n = 209) rated the importance of their research as a 4 or 5  prior to first submission of the manuscript to any journal for consideration for publication.Most respondents published observational studies n = 47, 73.3%Authors reported that anywhere between 1 and 10 submissions were necessary prior to acceptance , Fig. , Fig. 2cIn this pilot survey of corresponding authors who had recently published clinical research, we found that authors have high perceptions of their research. Authors reported requiring few manuscript submissions prior to journal acceptance, most commonly by lower impact factor journals. These findings suggest that the majority of clinical research studies in this sample were published within a year of first submission. Although our data come from a pilot study, our results may contradict prior perceptions that the biomedical publication process is too slow. Our results also suggest mixed perceptions about non-traditional publication practices.In this feasibility study, we found that only 21% of potential participants completed our survey. This may suggest that an insufficient number of diverse corresponding authors of clinical research studies would respond to a large-scale online survey about the speed and efficiency of the broader publication process. Our response rate also does not compare favorably with other surveys of authors, physicians, and clinical trial investigators , 6, 8. FAnnals of Internal Medicine, the majority of rejected manuscripts were published in lower impact factor specialty journals after an average of 18 months [One possible explanation for our survey findings is that authors publishing clinical research articles are preferentially submitting their manuscripts to lower impact journals, possibly to ensure that articles do not require multiple submissions to multiple higher impact journals prior to eventual acceptance. Evidence suggests that the manuscripts selected for peer review in the highest impact journals can have extensive review times . Accordi8 months . Our finin press, ahead of print, or online first articles, which could result in faster publication times. Journals may also be working to cut down on review times by increasing the number of papers that go through only one round of revision.Technological advances could also be responsible for faster production times. According to an analysis of journal articles published in PubMed from 1960 to 2015, the median time that manuscripts spend in production is half of what it was in the early 2000s . Over thWe found mixed perceptions when it comes to non-traditional publication practices. With the growing demand for faster dissemination of knowledge, journals as we know them may be “approaching their final act” . HoweverFirst, only 21% of potential participants completed our survey. Second, the manuscript submission process and selection of a corresponding author may differ by institution, country, and research field. For example, a graduate student who worked on a project and submitted the manuscript likely would know more about the submission history than a senior investigator listed as the corresponding author. Based on the relatively low median h-index and number of publications, it is also possible that the majority of the respondents were early career researchers or less prolific investigators. As a result, our sample may not have sufficient diversity to draw generalizable conclusions. Furthermore, we found differences between respondents and non-respondents that suggest some response bias. In particular, non-respondents were more likely to have non-institutional email addresses and had more publications. These differences may suggest that the two groups differ from one another in more ways than they are similar and is a limitation of our study. Subsequent studies should explore these possibilities, ideally with larger survey samples that would permit multivariable analyses to account for potential differences between the respondents and non-respondents. Lastly, we used a non-validated survey instrument. However, we attempted to maximize ease of completion and limited the scope of the survey to reduce response burden.We found that corresponding authors have high perceptions of their research and reported requiring few manuscript submissions prior to journal acceptance, most commonly by lower impact factor journals. Furthermore, the majority of clinical research studies were published within a year of first submission, which suggests that the publication of clinical research studies is less delayed than was expected. These trends may explain why corresponding authors have mixed perceptions when it comes to non-traditional publication practices.


Open access publishing has advantages for authors. They can share their work freely without infringing copyright restrictions and thereby, reach a wider audience and increase the potential of their work to be read and cited. The advantages of open access publishing are clear to university and research funding bodies and an increasing number of countries and organisations are making moves to encourage and oblige open access to research as explained in my last editorial Watson . This isI am very much in favour of open access publication. However, it is not appreciated by many academics that there is a cost attached to publishing scientific articles. Many are insensible to the cost as they have free access to all the important published content in their field through their university libraries. On the occasions that their university does not hold a subscription, and they are faced with the cost of downloading an article, they see what publishers charge to view and download an article. Many are surprised at the cost and cannot understand why they have to pay as the article is already published. They do not understand that the extent to which something is published – and available to them – means that a publisher has already borne the cost which includes editorial work, production, website maintenance and the salaries of those who have to provide these functions. If the article is available to them via their university library then their university will have borne the cost of purchasing a subscription.Concomitantly, and traditionally, publishers hold the copyright to published articles. This comes as another shock to many academics, who have done the work that led to their articles, including writing them, and who fail to see why they cannot do what they like with their published work. There is an internal logic to this argument which does not stand up to the test of external factors such as those described above. The publisher has borne the cost of producing and making available articles; without maintaining some control over the use of the published article, how do they recoup their costs? Some complain of the profits publishers make – invariably described as 'excessive' – without seeing the operation as a whole and the fact that in the UK, for example, the publishing industry is a major employer and contributor to the economy. The same people who complain about these job‐sustaining profits are often the same who take to the picket lines when their own jobs are under threat; they compound their ignorance of the business model of the publishing industry with their ignorance of the fact that university education also costs money. Expecting free access to published articles is analogous to expecting free access to the postal service simply because you wrote the letter that you wish to post.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292054-1058/homepage/article_publication_charges.htm). The costs are no longer insensible, and in the UK universities are spending vast amounts of money supporting open access either by subscription, paying for the publication of articles or, in the case of the green route, setting up expensive repositories and dedicating staff time to ensuring the open access policies are adhered to in order that staff publications meet the specifications of funding bodies. I have no figures to support my argument but I feel safe from contradiction in saying that the overall costs of publishing scientific articles has increased several fold. Did the open access movement anticipate this? I doubt it.Enter the open access movement. It is hard to specify its beginnings but impossible to ignore its influence. Open access to published scientific outputs is now considered 'the norm' and, as described in my previous editorial Watson , the opeThe sharp practices of some open access publishers were covered in my previous editorial Watson  and someNursing Open, and across the Wiley stable, we specify that we do keep these processes separate. In our author guidelines for Nursing Open, we state: ‘After review and acceptance, you will be prompted to sign the Open Access Agreement form’ and for example, in the JAN author guidelines it says:The Editorial Office should not be informed of the decision to publish Online Open until the manuscript has been accepted. All papers go through the journal's standard peer‐review process and are accepted or rejected based on their own merit.Publishers and editors involved in open access publishing need to ensure, and let it be known they ensure, that they separate the editorial processes in journals offering open access from the pay to publish open access processes. While the Committee on Publication Ethics have no guidance specific to editorial processes for open access, they do have relevant codes of conduct and the one for publishers  refers tNursing Open we are determined to ensure that our open access processes do not compromise an ethical approach to publishing and I reiterate from my first editorial (Watson Integrity – Nursing Open will operate according to the highest standards of authorship, peer review, editing and publishing. The ‘pay to publish’ aspect of the journal will be entirely separate from judging the scientific worth of articles. We provide a clear standard template for submission to which all articles must conform, and all submissions will be peer reviewed and edited. The process of publication and any problems or disputes arising throughout that process and after publication will be handled with fairness and equity according to the COPE guidelines.At l Watson  our comm


JACMP as envisioned by the Journals Business Management Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). In this Editorial, the JACMP Editors explore the larger evolution in the publishing universe, the multiple transitions now facing the JACMP, why so many changes are happening at the same time, and what the future may look like.In last month's Editorial, Sam Armato and Michael Mills outlined the economic principles that drive academic journals and explained the specific model for the Beginning in the late 1990s, the Internet created a disruptive challenge to traditional academic journal publishing. Such a challenge was overdue. Academic scientific journal publishing was and remains one of the most profitable business categories in existence, with margins of 40% and higher. Manufacturing, services, transportation, and retail operate on much smaller margins, usually well under 10%. The larger print publishers are able to command better prices for paper, printing, print advertising, and mailing costs, putting them at a significant advantage. The publishing industry underwent consolidation so that today, there are a few publishers that publish thousands of journals, with many smaller publishers either out of business or absorbed through industry consolidation. Online publishing is disruptive, in that smaller publishers can compete aggressively if they do not need to print the journal.Medical Physics. Finally, advertisers are starting to recognize that, since most research is conducted online, the only way to reach this audience is with online advertising. As such, a larger component of the advertising budget is being devoted to ads with online delivery. All of these factors make the future optimistic for online journals.For many reasons, however, most academic journals were not prepared to leave the larger publishers. This reluctance is, in part, due to the quality of services provided by the publishers, the knowledge base and relationships that built the print advertising in the journal, a reluctance to absorb the inevitable loss in advertising revenue that comes with transitioning from print to electronic‐only delivery, and the lack of transparency in cost/revenue provided to the journal by the publisher. At the inception of the open access disruptive challenge, usually dated around the year 2000, it was estimated that it would take a generation for most of the print journals to disappear and to transit to online only, and for competition to chip away at the massive size of the largest print publishers. The academic publishing industry is approximately halfway through this generation. Many journals are greatly reducing or eliminating their print delivery. One business model that has emerged is to have the online repository be the “official” version of the journal. What gets printed is only a portion of the article or a portion of all articles in the online database. This preserves a significant portion of the print advertising, while reducing print and mailing costs. Another trend is the move to online advertising; at first only a slow drip, it is now more like a steady trickle. New ad delivery processes are being developed, such as the .pdf “wrapper” ads you see in JACMP, it is apparent that, while many changes have already taken place, there are more changes on the horizon. The first was a change in ownership, as the Journal moved from the now defunct American College of Medical Physics (ACMP) to the AAPM in 2012. The JACMP now must fit into the overall publishing mission of the AAPM. The good news here is that the AAPM recognizes the value of publishing the world's leading academic clinical medical physics journal which has been associated with an Impact Factor greater than 1. The JACMP was recognized as a necessary complement to the Medical Physics journal, and its online model can be a template for some of the future changes in business model and delivery components of Medical Physics. In short, the JACMP is a good fit for the AAPM.Turning our attention to the JACMP and Medical Physics to be published by two separate publishers on two separate platforms. There are many reasons for this. Economy of scale dictates that the simplest and most efficient solution is a single publisher on a single platform. This has multiple advantages. Manuscripts could be easily transitioned between the two journals. Lower platform costs may be negotiated with more articles. The community of contributors will need to learn only one system, regardless of whether the article is clinical or scientific in nature. Finally, advertising products may be tailored for both journals, resulting in greater impact for the advertising dollar. These advantages are compelling, and the AAPM is currently in the process of identifying the future publisher of both its journals. The locus of this activity is the Ad Hoc Committee on Unifying Publication Platforms (AHUPP).However, it is not practical for the Medical Physics, and perhaps the print version of Medical Physics could be eliminated entirely at some point. If so, what is the creative response? Is there a way for the AAPM to preserve the revenue historically received from print advertising?Once the publisher is identified and the transition to the new platform and business model is complete, what happens next? We believe the next step will be for both journals to continue the generation‐long transition to online publishing. It is very likely that print and print advertising will make up a smaller part of the future of JACMP in the publishing marketplace. To all those in the JACMP community, we appreciate your continued support and your many hours of volunteer efforts writing, reviewing, and editing our articles. We are hopeful that the advertising model will be profitable and robust. For those that have not yet published or reviewed for the JACMP, we hope that the benefits of our open access and double‐blind review process are things you will find compelling. Although the environment surrounding the Journal is changing, we intend to preserve the things that make the JACMP a unique presence in medical physics publishing — a rigorously peer‐reviewed journal providing open access to practical, clinically focused articles.All of these ideas are consistent with the continued presence and success of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.This work is licensed under a Michael D. Mills, PhDEditor‐in‐Chief, JACMPPer H. Halvorsen, MScDeputy Editor‐in‐Chief, JACMPTimothy D. Solberg, PhDDeputy Editor‐in‐Chief, JACMP


An analysis of the countries of origin for JACMP submissions shows notable growth respecting nations along the Pacific Rim. Specifically, we are seeing more articles submitted from Australia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, and South Korea. Indeed, submission from Pacific Rim nations (excluding the US and Canada) comprised over 30% of all JACMP submissions in 2016.In informal discussions with representatives of our publisher Wiley, this regional growth is considered significant. In response, the JACMP Board of Editors has identified a number of new JACMP Associate Editors from Pacific Rim nations that hopefully will encourage a continuation of this growth. The goal of the JACMP is to reach all English‐speaking clinical medical physicists, worldwide, and the Pacific Rim is a primary constituency.Wiley has noticed a sharp increase of interest and number of submissions for all of its open access journals in the last 2 years. This interest is universal, but especially remarkable along the Pacific Rim. The JACMP seems to be benefiting by being in the right place at the right time with a distinguished publisher with significant presence in the open access publishing paradigm shift.All of this brings to mind the old paradox of the relationship between a scientific society and its publication offerings. What is it that creates the community? Is it the society? Or is it the publishing community of scientists, clinicians, editors, reviewers, and authors that generate the activity that adds meaning and life to the society and its structure. I recall that for a few years in the early 1970s, AAPM membership languished. Then with the establishment of the Medical Physics Journal, membership grew a factor of four in just a few years. The perception at the time was that in order to be successful in the profession, you had to have access to the Medical Physics Journal, and in order to get the Journal, you had to be a member of the AAPM. So what does this mean for the JACMP, when the open access publishing model gives its content away without cost?https://www.aapm.org/memb/default.asp and this table: https://www.aapm.org/memb/DuesBenefits.pdf.I believe a very strong case can be made for clinical medical physicists outside the US who are publishing in the JACMP to become AAPM members. Please consider this list of benefits contained within this webpage: Notable AAPM member benefits include the ICRU and NCRP publications, the AAPM Professional Practice Surveys, the Career Services and Bulletin, the AAPM Newsletter, Online Continuing Education, Professional Liability and other Insurance, and the Member Directory which allows you to network with all AAPM members. I have not yet mentioned the most significant benefit, which is access to the Medical Physics Journal, with its entire archive of classic medical physics articles. Access to the literature is critically important, but it is not everything. Clinical medical physicists also need access to education resources and professional survey and other information that will help build a profession within a nation or community.You will find there are many cost‐effective memberships available to you, our international colleagues, including student, resident, junior, corresponding and international affiliate membership categories. One of these is likely a good fit for you. As a forty‐plus year member of the AAPM, I cannot recommend the value of membership more highly. I believe it is your best move to advance your career and lead your profession.The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.


All authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) publication as provided to JCSM.No person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript.Each author has made a material and independent contribution to the work submitted for publication.The submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor that it has been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form.All authors certify that the work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before these other publications must be referenced.All original research work has been approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees.All conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding have been duly declared in the manuscript.The manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of JCSM as a valid publication only as long as all statements in the guidelines on ethical publishing remain true.If any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify the Editors of JCSM as soon as possible so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.This article details an updated version of the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM). At the time of submission to JCSM, the corresponding author, on behalf of all co‐authors, needs to certify adherence to these principles. The principles are as follows: The Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM) is a peer‐reviewed international journal dedicated to publishing materials that are related to cachexia and sarcopenia as well as to body composition and its physiological and pathophysiological changes during the lifespan and in different illnesses from all fields of the life sciences. JCSM was founded in 2010 and has attracted interest by both clinicians and researchers, which is buttressed by increasing download numbers, citations, submissions, and by an increasing impact factor.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, ESC Heart Failure and the two new daughter journals JCSM Clinical Reports and JCSM Rapid Communications, share the view that academic publishing depends, to a great extent, on trust between authors, reviewers, editors, and the academic and lay public.The authors of these ethical guidelines, who are editing five peer‐reviewed journals including—besides JCSM—the certifies that all authors listed on the manuscript that is to be considered for publication in JCSM have approved its submission and (if accepted) its publication as provided to JCSM;certifies that no person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript;certifies that each author has made a material and independent contribution to the work submitted for publication;certifies that the submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor has been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form;certifies that the work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere; where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before, these other publications must be referenced, and the degree of overlap and difference must be fully described and justified; excessive overlap that is not justified in a cover letter will lead to rejection or withdrawal of the manuscript;certifies that for all original research work, the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees have approved the studies; this rule is not applicable for review articles or editorial comments that give reference to other people's work;certifies that all conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding have been duly declared in the manuscript; andunderstands that the manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of JCSM as a valid publication only as long as all statements in the guidelines on ethical publishing remain true.If any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify the Editors of JCSM as soon as possible so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.All authors wishing to publish in JCSM are required to certify that they comply with the guidelines of publishing in JCSM outlined in the succeeding text. This should be performed by stating as part of the published manuscript that ‘All authors of this manuscript comply with the guidelines of ethical authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle’, providing reference to these guidelines by referencing this article. Specifically, the corresponding author, on behalf of all co‐authors,We will continue our editorial work for JCSM, and increasing numbers of submissions that have led to increase the numbers of issues of JCSM to now six per year underscore the continuing need for such a niche journal. This is particularly so, because diagnostic tools have improved and overall awareness of cachexia and sarcopenia has increased, however, there still remains a great unmet medical need, because cachexia and sarcopenia are still associated with an unacceptably high burden of morbidity and mortality affecting patients, families, caregivers and healthcare systems.Despite the existing wish to advance our knowledge, we recognize that the world is not free of scientific misconduct, which can come in many ways. We are happy to report that only very few problems have arisen in the past 7 years, and no published paper had to be withdrawn so far. The Editors of JCSM aim to continue to keep a close eye on these issues, and we need reviewers to help in this. We simply ask that authors play fair to the academic community and the public at large, and then none of this will ever be an issue. We want to take a lead in identifying, notifying, investigating, and reporting all occurrences of scientific misconduct related to JCSM. We will withdraw papers, if significant problems come to our attention. This shall be no surprise to anyone when it has to occur. Hence, we request that these ethical guidelines for publishing in JCSM are cited in each article. As stated before, academic publishing is built on trust—we want JCSM to be a trusted source of best available scientific knowledge in the field. We hope that, together, we can achieve this objective, and our journal can succeed in this ambition.


We published several papers covering each of the main topics within the scope of the journal from cell-free DNA, circulating tumour cells and extracellular vesicles to circulating proteins. In addition, we opened a new technology forum presenting the latest technology and published its first article entitled, “Analytical Validation and Capabilities of the Epic CTC Platform: Enrichment-Free Circulating Tumour Cell Detection and Characterization” by Shannon Werner and her colleagues.As we embrace for another exciting year (2016), we are thrilled to announce JCB has been indexed in the DOAJ   as part of our Associate Editors team, and Quentin Qiang Liu  and Shlomit Kenigsberg  as members of our Editorial Board.bit.ly/1p9EXVd).JCB is now media partners with both SelectBio and the Cambridge Healthtech Institute (CHI). JCB has arranged a discount for our readers when registering for SelectBio and CHI events, which by the way, have many presenters that are members of our Associate Editors and Editorial Board. Additional information about such opportunities can be found on JCB's news page (http://www.biopharmaresearchcouncil.org/), the Editor-in-Chief, Winston Patrick Kuo organized three events around the “microbiome”, two as a webinar series and the other, a conference hosted by the National Cancer Institute. In the first webinar, we were able to utilize our Editorial team to suggest the theme and present in the first session “Introduction to the Microbiome” by Alexander “Sasha” Vlassov, PhD, and as well as other talks from Camilia Martin, MD, MS of the Harvard Medical School, and Floyd Dewhirst, PhD, of The Forsyth Institute. The second webinar was held as a four-session webinar series in April 2015 entitled “Short Course in the McRobiome”. The goal of the short course was to provide insights at an introductory level, yet also a broad overview of the field in the form of an exchange between researchers from academia and industry in the clinical applications of the oral and gut microbiome. We had world renowned speakers including Rob Knight from UCSD, Camilia Martin from the Harvard Medical School, and Romina Goldszmid and K. Leigh Greathouse both from the NIH. They covered topics related to the “system biology approach”, “spatially explicit maps”, “microbiome and cancer therapy” and a “round-up of the latest news”. A meeting dispatch was published online and is available on the Journal of Circulation Biomarker's site . The event at the NCI was themed “Altering the Microbiome: Can it Impact Health?”. The purpose of this was to discuss how the host microbiome may be altered and whether such approaches can result in a positive impact on the host. We learned that the preparation process required about six months of coordination. We plan to continue several webinar series on circulating tumour cells and cell-free circulating DNA later this year.As an ongoing partnership/collaboration with the BioPharma Research Council (As we strive to publish the best science in all fields of circulating biomarkers, the Editorial team plans to focus on additional topics such as cell-free DNA and disruptive technologies, among others.http://www.editorialmanager.com/exo/default.asp. In addition, we are looking to expedite the acceptance to publishing time for our authors and will request informal opinions from our Editorial Board for borderline cases.JCB accepts original and review articles as well as editorials, perspectives, short research reports, protocols and methods, notes to the Editor, letters to the Editor and meeting dispatch reports. We would like to mention that InTech have decided that JCB will not apply any article processing charges for authors whose research papers have been accepted for publication in Volume 5/2016. Manuscript processing and peer-reviewing for JCB is conducted entirely online. The Editorial Manager facilitates the manuscript processing time, reducing costs and providing a better experience for our authors and reviewers. We have received numerous positive comments on this evolving electronic system, and we are indebted to InTech Open Access Publisher for managing this process for us. For more information, please visit our new manuscript submission system at As an ongoing effort, JCB will continue to work on partnering with scientific societies, and academic and industry leaders to advance the field and to allow free access to knowledge in the circulating biomarker space. It's our great pleasure to thank the Editorial team and publishers who make this possible.