The January, 2019 issue marked two milestones for the JACMP. It was our first monthly issue, and with it, the JACMP has published over 2000  peer‐reviewed clinical, education, management and other science articles. The December issue of this year will mark the completion of 20 continuous years of publication. Thank you to all of our volunteers and partners for helping the JACMP reach these signposts of success.When the JACMP was founded, some of us, including me, naïvely thought it would not be long before many if not most scholarly journals published open access. While slow, steady progress is being made in the marketplace on this front, traditional print publications, some with hybrid open access models, have proven quite resilient. Now, however, there are new developments that suggest that the traditional print model might be seeing a significant challenge.https://sparcopen.org/news/2018/coalition-european-funders-announces-plan-s/ It is an initiative of “cOAlition S”, https://www.coalition-s.org/, a consortium launched by the European Research Council, Science Europe, and major national research agencies and funders from twelve European countries. The plan requires scientists and researchers who benefit from state‐funded research organizations and institutions to publish their work in open repositories or in journals that are available to all by 2020. https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/09/15/european-countries-demand-that-publicly-funded-research-be-free.Plan S is an initiative for open‐access science publishing that was launched by Science Europe on September 4, 2018. Plan S makes the following assertion: “After 1 January 2020 scientific publications on the results from research funded by public grants provided by national and European research councils and funding bodies, must be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms.https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration;Authors retain copyright of their publication with no restrictions. All publications must be published under an open license, preferably the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY. In all cases, the license applied should fulfil the requirements defined by the Berlin Declaration The Funders will ensure jointly the establishment of robust criteria and requirements for the services that compliant high‐quality Open Access journals and Open Access platforms must provide;In case such high quality Open Access journals or platforms do not yet exist, the Funders will, in a coordinated way, provide incentives to establish and support them when appropriate; support will also be provided for Open Access infrastructures where necessary;Where applicable, Open Access publication fees are covered by the Funders or universities, not by individual researchers; it is acknowledged that all scientists should be able to publish their work Open Access even if their institutions have limited means;When Open Access publication fees are applied, their funding is standardized and capped (across Europe);The Funders will ask universities, research organizations, and libraries to align their policies and strategies, notably to ensure transparency;The above principles shall apply to all types of scholarly publications, but it is understood that the timeline to achieve Open Access for monographs and books may be longer than 1 January 2020;The importance of open archives and repositories for hosting research outputs is acknowledged because of their long‐term archiving function and their potential for editorial innovation;The “hybrid” model of publishing is not compliant with the above principles;https://www.scienceeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Plan_S.pdfThe Funders will monitor compliance and sanction non‐compliance. IN ADDITION:Der WissenschaftsfondsAcademy of FinlandAgence Nationale de la RechercheScience Foundation IrelandInstitute Nazionale di Fisica NucleareLuxembourg National Research FundNetherlands Organisation for Scientific ResearchThe Research Council of NorwayNational Science Centre PolandSlovenian Research AgencySwedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and WelfareFORMASUK Research and InnovationWellcomeBill & Melinda Gates FoundationRiksbankens Jubileumsfond — The Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social SciencesEuropean Commission Science CouncilScience EuropeFirst, note this is no small initiative with only a few supporters. The coalition represents 13 of the 43 major national research funding organizations in Europe and 2 European charitable foundations, including:https://www.coalition-s.org/funders-and-supporters/. The Coalition plans to work with the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to identify and assure the journals it credentials meet its requirements as completely open access. https://www.coalition-s.org/feedback/, https://doaj.org/.Supporting statements for this initiative from many of the above and others can be found here: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical PhysicsISSN: 1526‐9914 (Online)http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1526-9914Double blind peer reviewSubject: Medicine: Medicine : Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicineDate added to DOAJ: 5 Dec 2017Record Last Updated: 5 Dec 2017The JACMP is listed in the DOAJ along with over 12,500 other open access journals. It seems unlikely that most funded research would not be able to identify an appropriate journal for its subject matter. The JACMP's DOAJ listing follows:All scholarly content must be immediately accessible upon publication without any delay and free to read and download, without any kind of technical or other form of obstacles.Content needs to be published under CC BY, CC BY‐SA or CC0.The journal/platform must implement and document a solid review system according to the standards within the discipline, and according to the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics.The journal/platform must be listed in the DOAJ or be in the state of being registered.Automatic APC waivers for authors from low‐income countries and discounts for authors from middle‐income countries must be provided.Details about publishing costs  impacting the publication fees must be made transparent and be openly available on the journal website/publishing platform.DOIs must be used as permanent identifiers.Long‐term digital preservation strategy by deposition of content in an archiving programme such as LOCKSS/CLOCKSS.Accessibility of the full text in a machine‐readable format  to foster text and data mining.Link to raw data and code in external repositories.Provide high quality and machine‐readable article level metadata and cited references under a CC0 public domain dedication.Embed machine readable information on the Open Access status and the license of the article.Open Access journals and platforms need to meet the following criteria to be compliant with Plan S:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_SThe AAPM and Wiley are working to ensure that the JACMP will be compliant with all the particulars of Plan S and therefore be eligible as a Coalition approved journal. https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/09/15/european-countries-demand-that-publicly-funded-research-be-freeNot surprisingly, publishers have given Plan S a frosty reception. The policy “potentially undermines the whole research publishing system,” said Springer Nature, which publishes more than 3,000 journals, including Nature. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which publishes Science, said it would “disrupt scholarly communications, be a disservice to researchers, and impinge academic freedom”. http://michaeleisen.org/petition/index.phpMore than 1,800 academics have signed an open letter that voices support for open‐access publishing mandates from funders. Although the letter, which was spearheaded by Eisen, does not directly reference Plan S, it states that while funder demands may “superficially limit our publishing option in the short term,” they can lead to a system that “[maximizes] the reach of our scholarship and its value to the research community and public.” https://zenodo.org/record/1477914#.XBdtOhNKhTa, https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/plan-s-the-ambitious-initiative-to-end-the-reign-of-paywalls-65231.In early November, more than 600 researchers signed a different open letter — this one criticizing the plan for being “unfair for scientists” and “too risky for science in general.” The letter states that Plan S is a “serious violation of academic freedom,” and outlined several specific problems the academics have with the plan, including a ban on many valuable journals, the possible risk to international collaboration if funders in others parts of the world did not adopt a similar policy, and the potential for the cost of scholarly dissemination to increase under a model focused on “gold” open access, in which authors pay article processing charges (APCs) — sometimes in the thousands of dollars — for individual papers. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/scientific-societies-worry-plan-s-will-make-them-shutter-journals-slash-servicesSo far, 16 funders, most of them in Europe, have embraced Plan S, not enough to transform journal finances. U.S. government funders remain cool to the approach. But Plan S's international momentum grew — along with the threat it poses to traditional publishing — in December 2018, when officials in China backed its open‐access goals. If China follows through, Plan S could reduce publishers' income by perhaps 15% under certain conditions, according to an estimate published last week by Delta Think, a consulting firm in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. That analysis does not include the effect of the cap on author fees , which could cut revenues further. The average fee for papers published in purely open‐access journals in 2018 was about $1600, Delta Think has estimated. U.S. federal agencies are sticking to policies developed after a 2013 White House order to make peer‐reviewed papers on work they funded freely available within 12 months of publication. “We don't anticipate making any changes to our model,” said Brian Hitson of the U.S. Department of Energy in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, who directs that agency's public access policy.https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/will-world-embrace-plan-s-radical-proposal-mandate-open-access-science-papersNor are the three main federal research funders in Canada ready to change their joint 2015 OA policy. Plan S is “a bold and aggressive approach, which is why we want to make sure we've done our homework to ensure it would have the best effect on Canadian science,” says Kevin Fitzgibbons, executive director of corporate planning and policy at Canada's Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council in Ottawa. https://www.osa-opn.org/home/newsroom/2018/December/europe_s_plan_s_casts_shadow_on_scholarly_societie/But a number of commentators on the plan, from both the publishing and academic communities, have raised the possibility of collateral damage to another big part of the scholarly ecosystem: nonprofit societies. These nonprofits fund a large share of their activities in support of their communities through subscription revenues from journal publishing. And some critics assert that, ironically, Plan S could well drive some of them out of the publishing business entirely, further concentrating power in the hands of the big commercial players. In my view, this would seem to be the most likely eventuality: I believe the goals of Plan S could eventually be realized, perhaps substantially by 2025, and almost completely by 2030. It might be that the revenue currently enjoyed by the large publishers and scientific societies, could be reduced by 15% or more. This is just a guess, but a much more informed one than 20 years ago. Plan S could eventually succeed, and if it does, it may result in a publication model that better serves the public interest. For the JACMP, the next years could result in continued growth, particularly in Europe and China, where there is anticipated to be significant momentum to publish in Gold open access journals that are compliant with Plan S and the goals of cOAlition S.https://www.aapm.org/pubs/ and on the Medical Physics Journal page http://www.medphys.org/Finally, I want to remind everyone that the JACMP and Medical Physics Journal app can be found on the AAPM Publications page:


The majority of peer review is conducted through the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR), which works closely with the institutes and centers who ultimately fund projects of high scientific merit and high potential impact. CSR conducts the review of 90% of R01s, 85% of Fellowships, and 95% of SBIR applications as well as many other research and training opportunity activities. The playing field for successful funding from NIH is highly competitive. Understanding about different application types, who to talk to about your application, finding the right review panel, and learning about the policies pertaining to review are important steps in preparing an application. In this presentation, learn about the important aspects of the grant submission process and how CSR conducts the review of application in close coordination with NIH’s 24 institutes and centers.


Life Science Alliance is a community-driven journal that brings together research from diverse fields. The journal is first-of-its-kind in uniting not-for-profit publishers and employing the scientific community to change the way authors can publish their work. Life Science Alliance is a new not-for-profit, open access journal that represents a unique alliance between three leading publishers: EMBO Press, Rockefeller University Press, and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. This transcontinental partnership brings exciting, inclusive breadth to Life Science Alliance, as this new journal will enable transfer of work from nine major journals: The EMBO Journal, EMBO Reports, Molecular Systems Biology, EMBO Molecular Medicine, Journal of Cell Biology, Journal of Experimental Medicine, Journal of General Physiology, Genes and Development, and Genome Research.Life Science Alliance is a community-based journal that brings together carefully selected, rigorous research from diverse fields—from academic scientists, to academic scientists. Community-driven science has always been the spirit of the partner journals. Life Science Alliance streamlines the publication of valuable research referred to us from the nine partner journals or from direct submissions, through an editorial process led by academic editors and an advisory editorial board made up of our peers in research.Life Science Alliance to promote an incisive, constructive review process that aims to select for valuable research without demanding excessive revisions and additions. Rigorously performed research of interest to others should be published with minimal delay. Period. We aim to be part of the solution to the excessive revision cycles that have become routine within the modern research publication process. As scientists we know the frustration and loss of time and resources that come with such a lengthy process, and with moving from one journal to the next. As academic editors for Life Science Alliance, we aim to prevent such frustration by providing an alternative. We routinely evaluate manuscripts that are recommended to us from the partner journals, based on in-hand reviews, inviting authors to transfer their work to Life Science Alliance with a clear outline of what is needed for publication. We are also committed to handling direct submissions with one set of referee reports and only one round of major revision. As academic editors, we participate actively in decisions—in particular focussing on the essential referee requests.Well-performed, valuable research shouldn't suffer from the ever-present request for one more major experiment, often at the insistence of the proverbial “Reviewer 3”. We joined Life Science Alliance is first-of-its-kind in uniting not-for-profit publishers and employing the scientific community itself to change the way authors can publish their work. Our advisory editorial board includes not only established leaders but also numerous up-and-coming stars in their respective fields. To change the culture, we need to empower the whole community, prominently including junior faculty as well as postdocs, to review and select valuable research and to decide: What kind of science should we be publishing? What constitutes a fair and constructive review process? How do we improve the process? This is truly a community-driven journal. We invite input from the community and will continue to do so as Life Science Alliance evolves.The journal


Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2017, including 76 original research papers, 4 reviews, 5 technical notes, 1 guideline, and 3 corrections. The volume was down slightly from 2017 with a corresponding 15% decrease in manuscript submissions from 405 to 346 and thus reflects a slight increase in the acceptance rate from 25 to 26%. The decrease in submissions for the year followed the initiation of the increased author processing charge (APC) for Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) members for manuscripts submitted after June 30, 2018. The quality of the submissions continues to be high. The 2018 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2019) was slightly lower at 5.1 . The timing of the JCMR transition to the open access platform was “ahead of the curve” and a tribute to the vision of Dr. Matthias Friedrich, the SCMR Publications Committee Chair and Dr. Dudley Pennell, the JCMR editor-in-chief at the time. The open-access system has dramatically increased the reading and citation of JCMR publications and I hope that you, our authors, will continue to send your very best, high quality manuscripts to JCMR for consideration. It takes a village to run a journal and I thank our very dedicated Associate Editors, Guest Editors, Reviewers for their efforts to ensure that the review process occurs in a timely and responsible manner. These efforts have allowed the JCMR to continue as the premier journal of our field. This entire process would also not be possible without the dedication and efforts of our managing editor, Diana Gethers. Finally, I thank you for entrusting me with the editorship of the JCMR as I begin my 4th year as your editor-in-chief. It has been a tremendous experience for me and the opportunity to review manuscripts that reflect the best in our field remains a great joy and highlight of my week!This is the 12th year of  Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) is a publication of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR). There were 89 articles published in JCMR in 2018, including 76 original research papers, 4 reviews, 5 technical notes, 1 guideline, and 3 corrections. The volume was down slightly from 2017 with a corresponding 15% decrease in manuscript submissions from 405 to 346. As a result, there was a slight increase in the acceptance rate from 25 to 26%. The decrease in submissions for the 2018 year followed the initiation of an author processing charge (APC) for SCMR members for manuscripts submitted after June 30, 2018. The $500/manuscript charge for SCMR members reflects an 80% discount to the full APC of $2500. Our largest source of submissions continues to be the United States, followed by China, the United Kingdom and Germany  was slightly lower at 5.1 (vs. 5.46 for 2017), which is the third highest impact factor ever recorded for JCMR. The 2018 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2016 and 2017 were cited on average 5.1 times in 2018. This puts JCMR well positioned in the top quartile of journals in the broad categories of “Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems” and “Radiology, Nuclear medicine and Medical Imaging.” Most importantly, the open-access format allows for much greater visibility for our authors with JCMR digital accesses now exceeding 1,000,000 per year – an threshold simply not achievable with our prior subscription print publication.The quality of JCMR editorial office has been located at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA under the leadership of its third editor-in-chief, Dr. Warren J Manning. Dr. Gerald Pohost was the JCMR inaugural editor-in-chief. In 2006, he was succeeded by Professor Dudley Pennell of the Royal Brompton Hospital, London, England.Since December 2016, the JCMR associate editors reflect the international and diverse spectrum of the SCMR. This past year, Dr. Andrew Powell stepped down from his associate editor JCMR position to undertake the SCMR presidency. His position on the associate editorial board was filled by Dr. Joshua Robinson, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. The other associate editors include Drs. Rene Botnar (UK/Chile), John Greenwood (UK), Yuchi Han (USA), Dara Kraichman (USA), Robert Lederman (USA), Timothy Leiner (The Netherlands), and Reza Nezafat (USA). In addition, Dr. Long Ngo (USA) serves as the JCMR statistical editor. Drs. Amit Patel (USA) and Juan Lopez-Mattei (USA) serve as our social media/Twitter editors. Dr. Timothy Leiner will be stepping down from his associate editor role in mid-2020 as he undertakes the presidency of the International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM). We thank Tim for his efforts these past 3 years and wish him continued success with the ISMRM presidency. Diana Gethers (jcmroffice@scmr.org) continues to serve as our managing editor. All correspondence to the JCMR managing office should continue to be sent to jcmroffice@scmr.org.The current www.jcmr-online.org website.All manuscripts are submitted and processed through the JCMR readership and a determination as to its overall likely priority for publication. Approximately 5-10% of submitted manuscripts are deemed inappropriate or very unlikely to reach sufficient priority for acceptance and are therefore returned to the author(s) within a week so as to expedite submission to a more appropriate journal. If appropriate, the authors are also offered the opportunity to directly forward their manuscript to another BMC open access publication.After initial BMC office confirmation that the manuscript is in the appropriate format , the manuscript is sent for initial review to the Boston office. Within 48 h, I assess the manuscript for its appropriateness for the JCMR reviewer, please contact our managing editor, Diana Gethers [jcmroffice@scmr.org] or visit us at the JCMR display at the 2020 SCMR annual scientific meeting in Orlando. Conflict manuscripts, those for which a member of the associate editorial board is either an author or closely associated with an author, are independently handled by a Guest Editor  reviews have been received by noon Friday, a manuscript is scheduled to be discussed at our associate editorial board meeting held every Tuesday from 9:30-10:30 am EST. When I am out of town/unavailable, the associate editors continue to meet at that time so as to not delay the publication process. At each meeting, 4-12 manuscripts may be discussed. The manuscript decisions at that meeting includeJCMR style/abbreviations before final submission to BMC for typesetting. The galleys are then sent to the corresponding author and then to me for final sign-off. I then identify a fingernail image for publication in JCMR to accompany the tweet. The manuscript is usually published on-line within a week of my final sign-off.When a manuscript is accepted, I then edit the submission for Our target goal is than 60% of manuscripts will have a submission to first decision within 31 days, a process that is very dependent on timely reviews. If the two reviews markedly differ in their assessment/recommendation (~ 25% of the time) or the associate editor feels we need additional information, we may delay a decision until the third review has been received or solicit a fourth reviewer – a process that unfortunately can add a month or more to the review process. At our editorial meeting, we may also to seek the counsel of our statistical reviewer. We try to alert the corresponding author if this situation occurs or the unusual occurance of our not being able to discuss all of the manuscripts on our weekly agenda (or the assigned associate editor is unable to participate).JCMR. Is the study scientifically sound? Does the manuscript present new data? Will our readership be interested or informed by the topic?As with any review process, we recognize that we are not perfect. We do our best to objectively assess the science, presentation, and appropriateness for anonymized reviews with published manuscripts. I do not anticipate publication of submitted (but not accepted manuscripts) or inclusion of prior versions of an accepted manuscript with reviews as I am concerned this may be confusing to the reader.Reviews are currently anonymous and not available to our readers, but we are exploring the ability to include JCMR is dependent on reviewers to provide an independent evaluation of the quality  of a submission. Though our associate editor knowledge base is broad, they are not experts in all areas. We expect reviewers to act independently and to acknowledge any conflicts of interest.Like all peer review journals, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology to be a very valuable resource (http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/42/7/1314). The JCMR review invitation includes the broad strokes of what makes a good review. This includessignificance to the fieldSynopsys of the manuscript’s overall Novelty/originality of the workstudy design appropriateIs the MethodsSoundness of the statistical methods appropriateAre the Results presented in a logical and succinct mannerAre the Figures and Tables appropriate. Is there redundancy in the text and Figures/Tables. If so, how are the data most appropriately presented for the reader?Are the Discussion and Limitations section appropriate both in length and contentAre the References that may be overlooked or misquotedListing of Ease of reading – is editing by native English speaker neededWhat makes a good review? I find an article by my friend and colleague, Dr. Anthony DeMaria, former editor-in-chief of the Each primary manuscript review  that we receive is subjectively assessed by the associate editor based on the criteria above. A grade of ≥60% would qualify the reviewer for the Gold Star Reviewer award (see next). Reviewers with consistent grades of < 50% are no longer asked to be reviewers.JCMR. As a recognition of reviewers, at the 2019 SCMR Annual meeting in Beelevue, Washington, USA we recognized our 94 “Gold Star” Reviewers for 2018 , each Gold Star Reviewer was offered a small gift  credit started in 2019.Reviewers are a key component to the success of the ift Fig.  as a tokhttp://scmr.peachnewmedia.com/store/provider/custompage.php?pageid=20). As mentioned, in 2019, we started offering CME credit as a benefit for our reviewers. New for 2020 is a monthly JCMR Journal Club moderated by Drs. Scott Flamm , Raymond Kwong  and Matthias Stuber . Journal Club will be on the 2nd Wednesday of the month from 10 to 11 am EST, beginning Wednesday, January 8th. Stay tuned for this exciting new JCMR feature. We are investigating CME credit for this offering as well.In late 2017, we introduced on-line CME credit for the benefit of our clinician readers. This program has been a great success and now includes 17 manuscripts , Paul Finn , Peng Hu , Saul Myerson , Matthias Stuber  and Claudia Prieto Vasquez (United Kingdom-Chile). For the past year, the JCMR Editorial Board has consisted of 45 members with expertise across the spectrum and geography of CMR.JCMR continues to be active on Twitter with the handle “JournalofCMR”. This relationship is coordinated by Drs. Amit Patel and Juan Lopez-Mattei. As of late November 2019, we had 2434 followers (a 34% increase over last year). For comparison, the Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography (JASE) has 842 followers, the Journal of Cardiac Computed Tomography (JCCT) has 1608 followers, the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology has 496 followers, and Circulation CV Imaging has 1185 followers. To date this year, we have had 267,877 impressions (a 28% increase from 2018). I applaud the efforts of our social media editors, Drs. Amit Patel and Juan Lopez-Mattei for their efforts in this arena!The JCMR authors in 2018 was the APC. Though SCMR members do not receive favorable treatment with regards to manuscript evaluation in the review process, for the first 10 years of our open access publication, the SCMR covered the entire APC for SCMR members. With the ongoing growth of the JCMR and SCMR, it became apparent that this benefit was creating an increasing SCMR financial burden that benefited a very small minority of the membership. In addition, there is increasing recognition and expectation by granting agencies that original manuscripts will be published in an open access format for which APC charges are a recognized expense. As a result, the JCMR APC policy changed for all manuscripts submitted after June 30, 2018 to include a $500 APC charge for manuscripts submitted by SCMR members. This represents a substantial (80%) discount to the full APC of $2500/manuscript for non-members.The biggest change for JCMR does not publish individual case reports. Those interested in publishing a CMR case report are encouraged to submit their work to the case series on the SCMR web site (https://scmr.org/page/caseoftheweekLDGPG). In collaboration with the SCMR case of the week editors, we hope to publish a compendium of the 2019 SCMR case reports in 2020 so as to provide a searchable database for those interested.The JCMR does accept unsolicited reviews. For those interested in writing a review, please check with the editor before embarking on this endeavor.The JCMR has awarded the Pohost Prize to that manuscript deemed by the associate editors and editorial board to be the best manuscript published in the prior year. At the 2019 annual meeting in Bellevue, Washington, the 12th Gerald M. Pohost Award was presented to Wenjia Bai and colleagues for the manuscript, “Automated cardiovascular magnetic resonance image analysis with fully convolutional networks.”  pyruvate.13C pyruvate contrast offers this opportunity. In this theoretical and swine study by Fuetterer and co-workers [13C pyruvate contrast provided sufficient SNR for both absolute and semi-quantitative perfusion.Absolute myocardial blood flow quantification would be preferred and hyperpolarized -workers , simulatSimultaneous multi slice (SMS) balanced steady state free precession first-pass myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance with iterative reconstruction at 1.5 T.Simultaneous multi-slice perfusion imaging has the potential to acquire multiple slices, increasing myocardial coverage witout sacrificing in-plane spatial resolution. In this study, Nazir et al.  performeSemi-automatic detection of myocardial trabeculation using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: correlation with histology and reproducibility in a mouse model of non-compaction.The definition of LV non-compaction remains ill-defined. In this genetic mouse model of non-compaction, Frandon et al.  found siBlood volume measurement using cardiovascular magnetic resonance and ferumoxytol: preclinical validation.A hallmark of heart failure is increased blood volume. Ramasawmy and colleagues  used ferCardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of acute cardiovascular effects of voluntary apnoea in elite divers.In this study, Eichhorn and colleagues  examinedArtefacts in 1.5 Tesla and 3 Tesla cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in patients with leadless cardiac pacemakers.There are increasing data on the safety of transvenous pacing and CMR, but few data on leadless pacemakers. In this observational study, Kiblboeck and co-workers  performeEvaluation of skeletal muscle microvascular perfusion of lower extremities by cardiovascular magnetic resonance arterial spin labeling, blood oxygenation level-dependent, and intravoxel incoherent motion techniques.Lower extremity perfusion can be measured by multiple methods. In this study of healthy young and healthy and peripheral arterial disease elderly subjects, Suo et al.  performeAn in-vivo comparison of stimulated-echo and motion compensated spin-echo sequences for 3 T diffusion tensor cardiovascular magnetic resonance at multiple cardiac phases.Though techinically challenging, diffuse tensor imaging (DTI) to examine myocardial microstructure has received increasing attention over the past few years. In this study, Scott and colleagues  comparedDiagnostic and prognostic significance of cardiovascular magnetic resonance native myocardial T1 mapping in patients with pulmonary hypertension.The impact of native T1 in pulmonary artery hypertension has not been examined. In this restrospective study, Saunders and colleagues  examinedA comprehensive characterization of myocardial and vascular phenotype in pediatric chronic kidney disease using cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.Children with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have increased cardiovascular mortality. In this pediatric study of 120 children with mild, moderate and severe CKD, Cheang et al.  found CMCardiovascular magnetic resonance left ventricular strain in end-stage renal disease patients after kidney transplantation.Progressive CKD leading to end-stage renal disease is associated with significant cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In this prospective study of 39 patients undergoing CMR prior to and 12 months after renal transplant, Gong and co-workers  found thGuidelines continue to play an increasing role in the evaluation and patients with CMR increasingly recognized for providing unique metrics –188.Guidelines for training in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR).CMR training were first published by the SCMR in 2000  and subsThe growth and evolution of cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a 20-year history of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) annual scientific sessions.At the 20th annual SCMR scientific sessions, we had presentations by many of the SCMR founders. In this review, Lee and colleagues  summarizJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2017.As with this publication, at the end of last year I summarized the 2017 publications in thematic constructs and provided a “State of our JCMR” perspective to our readership .Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) expert consensus for CMR imaging endpoints in clinical research: part I - analytical validation and clinical qualification.With the increasing acceptance of CMR as a preferred endpoint for clinical research due to high fidelity and reproducibility, Puntmann and colleagues  providedAminophylline shortage and current recommendations for reversal of vasodilator stress: an ASNC information statement endorsed by SCMR.Both CMR and radionuclide myocardial perfusion share the use of vasodilators for providing differential perfusion to normal and ischemic territories. In mid-2018 there was a shortage of aminophylline, a pharmaceutical often used to reverse vasodilatory effects. This led to an American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) informational statement led by Abidov et al.  regardinMinor corrections were made two Society publications and one manuscript:Correction to: Clinical recommendations for cardiovascular magnetic resonance mapping of T1, T2, T2* and extracellular volume: A consensus statement by the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) endorsed by the European Association for Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI.This manuscript was incorrectly listed as a review article and was changed to a position paper. The competing interests were also added ..Correction to: Diagnostic performance of semi-quantitative and quantitative stress CMR perfusion analysis: a meta-analysis.Corrections were made to Figs. 8-11 due to an error made in typesetting .Correction to: Simple motion correction strategy reduces respiratory-induced motion artifacts for k-t accelerated and compressed-sensing cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging.Corrections were made to Fig.


Effective immediately authors and readers shall notice some minor yet significant changes to the papers published in this and other MDPI journals .The first of these changes is the addition of Digital Object Identifier (DOI) numbers to each paper using the CrossRef system . This waThe second change is the addition of an Open Access logo above the individual journal title logos. Although we have been using this for some time now on the Tables of Contents of the various MDPI journals to indicate the level of accessibility of papers, we shall now also be adding them to the individual articles themselves to further emphasize our support for this publishing model .Marine Drugs has already been published under such a license since January 2008. Other MDPI journals, including this one, will start publishing under this license in the current and June 2008 issues. All content previously published by MDPI will be released under the CC "By Attribution" license within a few months, as we roll out our new publication platform (now in testing) and the copyright line text has been changed to reflect this.Thirdly, we have been aware of the fact that the copyright line text previously used at the end of MDPI published papers was not in line with the Budapest-Bethesda-Berlin definitions on Open Access (commonly referred to as the BBB definitions) . To remeCommunication, Article  and Review. Finally, authors and readers will note a minor change to the names used for the various types of papers published in our journals. In order to align our naming scheme with the recommendations of the NLM , and aft


Cell Proliferation. The journal has reached new heights and recently received its highest ever Impact Factor of 4.936 . Over the past half‐century since Cell Proliferation first launched, the journal has witnessed continued developments within the field of cell biology and an explosion of published research. In recent years, we have received more submissions to the journal than ever before in its 50‐year history. It therefore seems a fitting time to look ahead to the next 50 years and take this opportunity to make some exciting changes to the journal.Welcome to the first 2019 issue of Cell Proliferation will move from being a subscription journal to an open access journal, effective from the 2019 volume.We are constantly looking for ways to ensure that we continue to best serve authors’ needs—from maintaining the continued high quality of research published in the journal, to the speed and efficiency of our peer review and publication process. We are very pleased to announce that Cell Proliferation have been published open access under a creative common licence and subject to an Article Processing Charge (APC). You can find details of the APC costs here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652184/article_publication_charges.html. You can find further details about Cell Proliferation’s open access licensing and copyright here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652184/open_access_license_and_copyright.html.Since 10th September 2018, all articles submitted and accepted for publication in Cell Proliferation has a global authorship base, many of whom are in regions where open access publication is accelerating. We also continue to see many institutions and global funders creating open access policies and mandates for their authors. As such, we would like to ensure that we are making it easier for authors to fulfil their funders’ mandates on open access publication. Cell Proliferation will join several other high impact journals in the Wiley Open Access portfolio (http://www.wileyopenaccess.com) and will benefit from the advantages that this confers. For readers, it will enable easier access to published research, giving greater visibility to both the authors and research published in Cell Proliferation.For authors, publishing open access creates more permissive use and sharing of their articles, which in turn helps to increase the dissemination of their research. Cell Proliferation, and all submissions will continue to undergo the same rigorous peer review process as they do currently. We hope that this change to an open access journal will encourage new authors and readers to Cell Proliferation. We are excited to see the journal embark on its new direction and hope that we can continue to count on you all, as readers and authors of Cell Proliferation, to submit your high‐quality research to the journal.From an editorial perspective, there will be no change to the journal’s current modus operandi. High‐quality, well‐conducted research is still imperative to


Biomedical research from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is poorly represented in Western European and North American psychiatric journals.To test the feasibility of trialling a capacity-building intervention to improve LMIC papers' representation in biomedical journals.British Journal of Psychiatry. We conducted a feasibility study, inviting consenting authors to be randomised to intervention versus none, measuring recruitment and retention rates, outcome completion and author/reviewer-rated acceptability.We designed an enhanced peer-review intervention delivered to LMIC corresponding/first authors of papers rejected by the Of the 26/121 consenting to participate, 12 were randomised to the intervention and 14 to the control arms. Outcome completion was 100% but qualitative feedback from authors/reviewers was mixed, with attrition from 5/12 (42%) of intervention reviewers.Low interest among eligible authors and variable participation of expert reviewers suggested low feasibility of a full trial and a need for intervention redesign.British Journal of Psychiatry editorial board members. During this study P.T. was British Journal of Psychiatry Editor, A.P. was a trainee editor and A.H. was an editorial assistant.A.P., P.T. and M.Y. are  The striking underrepresentation of published research from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Western European and North American psychiatric journals has been attributed to low submission rates in the context of the inadequate resourcing of psychiatric research.This is thought to be linked to editors' and peer reviewers' views regarding the relevance of research from LMICs, as well as perceptions of the quality of submitted papers, both in methodology and written English. If such unconscious biases do exist this has serious implications for the implementation of evidence-based technical medical interventions in LMIC settingsFactors relevant to global inequities in publication of biomedical science include underresourced research infrastructures in LMICs that limit opportunities for supervision and training and hamper the design and conduct of primary research and literature reviews. Pressure to publish in high-impact journals may also necessitate writing in a second language.British Journal of Psychiatry, a psychiatric journal published monthly by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We developed a trial protocol and report the findings of our feasibility study here; conducted to assess rates of recruitment and retention, and on which to base assumptions about effect sizes for a potential full trial.Our objective was to test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial  to assess the impact of an enhanced peer-review process for rejected papers submitted from resource-limited countries in optimising their chances of publication within an indexed journal. We designed an intervention delivered by experienced peer reviewers, operationalised using the existing editorial system of papers submitted to the British Journal of Psychiatry by a first or corresponding author from a LMIC over a 12-month period from 1 November 2011 and rejected without review. We defined LMICs using 2012 World Bank criteria, which classified low-income countries as those including India, Nigeria and China and middle-income countries as those including Brazil, Romania, Bulgaria, Lebanon and Mexico.Our inclusion criteria for participation in the feasibility study were: any paper submitted to the British Journal of Psychiatry, with reviewers rated annually for volume and speed of reviews. A total of 46 reviewers agreed to participate (36%), on the understanding of being allocated up to two manuscripts each during this study.Our intervention was allocation to a capacity-building expert reviewer, who had been given the remit of improving the standard of the paper to a level suitable for publication in a biomedical journal. Given the potentially intensive nature of the enhanced peer-review process we wished to select those reviewers most likely to commit to detailed and timely responses. Expert reviewers were recruited in 2011 from the previous year's 128 top-ranking peer reviewers for the British Journal of Psychiatry, there was no guarantee of acceptance. In the case of a resubmission, our study protocol was that the paper would be allocated to a different handling editor. The email explained that those allocated to the control group would receive no further contact, with the expectation that they would submit their paper elsewhere.The email inviting eligible authors to take part in the trial explained that authors randomised to the intervention arm would be offered ‘detailed and constructive feedback to improve their papers after they have been rejected for publication’. It was clarified that at any point in this process authors in the intervention arm could resubmit their paper to any journal, and although this could include the Papers for which the author consented to participate in the trial were randomised from a remote location by our trial statistician to either the intervention or control (no intervention) arms on a 1:1 ratio using block randomization with randomly varied blocks of four, six and eight.Each paper allocated to the intervention arm was assigned consecutively to an expert reviewer. Authors randomised to the intervention received an email informing them that the reviewer they had been allocated would email them up to six times over a maximum period of 6 months, providing comments that ‘may involve suggestions about: a possible journal to send the paper to, rewriting slightly or extensively, doing further analyses or expanding the work a little, or possibly abandoning the project in favour of a somewhat different one’.Intervention arm reviewers were provided with the name of their allocated author and instructed to, thorough peer review, help the author improve their manuscript and suggest which journals might be better suited to their study. They were asked to format their input such that their initial email provided detailed peer-review comments on the submitted manuscript, with subsequent emails responding to queries or revisions.Our measures of feasibility were recruitment rates (response to sampling invitation) and retention rates (as reported by reviewers). We measured acceptability by contacting allocated reviewers to explore their experiences of contact with authors, and to measure their authors' retention in the study.We followed up participating authors to explore their experiences of participating. We also contacted non-responders to ask them their reasons for not responding, explaining ‘We are particularly concerned that the invitation might have been perceived as patronising or unnecessary as you were already experienced in getting papers published, but it would be helpful to know the reasons, whatever they are’.As this was a feasibility study, we did not conduct a sample size calculation, but collected data on prospective outcomes for a full trial. We measured, at 3 years after initial submission: publication in an indexed journal; publication in any (indexed/unindexed) journal (binary outcomes) and impact factor . We were unable to estimate an effect size for group difference on these measures because of the lack of previous studies. However, one goal of this study was to provide parameters on which to base assumptions about effect sizes for a potential full trial.British Journal of Psychiatry, whether the journal was indexed and the impact factor. Given the large number of non-responders to the initial invitation to participate, a post hoc decision was made to add these as a second control group, measuring publication outcomes in a similar way. Conducting such a search was felt to be ethical given that publication was a matter of public record and that no identifying details would be given in this paper. We therefore collected outcomes for the 92 non-responders too.Outcomes were collected by searching PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus by author and approximations of the submission title, to determine whether it had been published within 3 years of submission to the British Journal of Psychiatry, which was considered and approved by the Royal College of Psychiatrists Publication Management Board in May 2011.We did not seek ethical approval for this feasibility study because the initiative was developed as a potential editorial service improvement for submitting authors and the readership. The protocol reflected a variation of the existing submission process for papers submitted to the 2 tests to compare groups on the proportion of submissions that had been published in an indexed journal within 3 years of submission. We used logistic regression to test for an association between the intervention and whether a submission was published in an indexed journal within 3 years of submission, and whether published in any journal, adjusting for country of origin of corresponding/first author. We used linear regression to test for an association between the intervention and mean impact factor in the subset of those submissions that were published in a journal with an impact factor.We used χpost hoc comparison adding non-responders to controls, such that our comparison was intervention versus controls plus non-responders. This also helped determine whether adding those with a lead time advantage  affected outcomes. We analysed data on an intention-to-intervene basis.Our comparison of outcomes was between the intervention and control arms. To increase statistical power, we also performed a The recruitment period was extended beyond 12 months to 22 months, because of the lower number of eligible papers than anticipated and the number of non-responders. Between 8 November 2011 and 9 September 2013 a total of 121 papers fulfilling inclusion criteria were identified, and each of the 121 corresponding authors was invited to participate in the trial . We stopn = 12) or control arms (n = 14). Twelve reviewers were allocated 1:1 to the 12 submissions in the intervention arm.Of the 121 invited, 3 corresponding/first authors declined to take part in the trial and 92 did not respond to the invitation, representing a response rate of 24% (29/121) and a consent rate of 22% (26/121). The 26 consented submissions were allocated to either the intervention  had never contacted their allocated author, despite repeated reminders from editorial staff. These five submissions were analysed on an intention-to-intervene basis. Of the remaining seven allocations, two reviewers received no response after contacting their allocated author. Five reviewers maintained correspondence with their allocated authors, and two received a revised manuscript following their peer-reviewer comments. Feedback from reviewers on their experiences of the interactive peer-review process was mixed (see Appendix).n = 1); perceiving the email as patronising (n = 1); lack of perceived utility (n = 1); being too busy to take part because of exams/moving institution (n = 2); being on extended leave (n = 1) and not having received the initial email (n = 4).Three participating authors responded to follow-up inviting comments on their experience of participating. One (control) could not remember having been randomised, and the other two provided comments revealing mixed experiences (Appendix). Of 92 non-responders, 10 responded to our follow-up inviting comments on reasons for not participating. Their reasons for not taking part were coded using a basic classification as: preferring a fast-track assessment (n = 26) the country of origin represented most frequently was India (n = 8) followed by China (n = 5). For non-responders the highest proportion was China (n = 32) followed by India (n = 25). Of those refusing participation (n = 3), two papers were submitted from India and one from China. Of those included in the analysis (non-responders and consenters), China represented the highest proportion of submissions (n = 40), followed by India (n = 33). Based on frequencies we derived a six-category variable to denote country of origin: India, China, Nigeria, other Indian subcontinent, Middle East, and other .When we tested for an association between publication outcome and country of origin, we found no significant differences in relation to publication in an indexed journal, or in any journal. However, papers published by Chinese authors had a significantly higher mean impact factor  and consent rates (22%) were low, suggesting that a full trial would have similar problems with recruitment. We also identified problems with implementation fidelity, such that only 7 of 12 peer reviewers had contacted their allocated author. While only three of those authors had sent back a revised manuscript, this did not preclude other authors having submitted their revised manuscript elsewhere. These findings of low levels of interest among authors, together with the mixed experience of reviewers, suggested low feasibility of the intervention. Our comparison of publication outcomes  also provided no evidence to support the effectiveness of enhanced peer review as a means of improving the chances of publication. We did note that among published papers, those by Chinese authors had the highest mean impact factor. This may be because of financial publication incentives for Chinese researchers,Our qualitative feedback from non-responders suggests that our low response and consent rates may have been because some of the invitations had been missed (perhaps in junk mail), some authors had felt it more efficient to submit directly to another journal and that the invitation had been experienced as patronising. The latter is most likely to have been the case for authors from rapidly advancing economies such as Brazil, China and India. Development indicators are dynamic and since this study commenced, the 2014 United Nations Human Development Report classified China as a high-income country.Regardless of country of origin, there exists a general problem that any suggestion of affirmative action in editorial decisions could be seen as both patronising and discriminatory.The largest group of non-responders in our study were from China, a country where authors are under great pressure to publish papers in indexed journals to gain career promotion or monetary awards at work. This would have dissuaded involvement in a trial on the basis of these time costs. Communication with journal editors is not commonplace in Chinese biomedical culture, and some authors may have perceived negatively the prospect of repeated communication with reviewers during the trial. Pressure to publish quickly may also have placed these authors at risk of predatory publishers, which disproportionately trap LMIC authors.Almost 50% of the intervention arm did not receive the intervention, reflecting low engagement of even the most active peer reviewers, the majority of whom were editorial board members. It is possible that this reflected competing time pressures to submit grant applications and research papers, in the context of teaching and clinical responsibilities and a high frequency of requests for peer review. The burden on peer reviewers may not have been realistic, but our approach to choosing peer reviewers may also not have been optimal. Predictors of quality of peer review in general medical journals include younger age of reviewer, training in epidemiology or statistics and longer time taken to review (up to 3 h), with reviews by editorial board members conversely rated as poor quality.pro bono, with paid staff also under pressure to achieve targets. The time and resources required for enhanced peer review are vulnerable to cuts and competing priorities, unless specifically funded by bodies interested in providing such a service. It might be argued that instead of funding such short-term solutions, funds would be better invested upstream and over the longer term, for example in training early career researcher in LMICs in methodology and report-writing.This final issue lies at the crux of how best to deliver capacity-building interventions to improve the international dissemination of research from LMICs. Many biomedical journals are edited by academics offering their time We are not aware of other trials of any similar intervention. Other approaches to building capacity in higher education and research in LMICs include investing in training in preparation of research proposals and publications, but this has not been formally evaluated. In some countries, university research funding formulae are based on numbers of publications, with the concern that this drives higher volumes of lower-quality papers. Where the impact of such formulae has been evaluated in high-income settings, this has not been found to affect quality of research output negatively.This was a pragmatic trial that recruited papers routinely submitted to, and rejected from, a high-impact psychiatric journal, thus reflecting current practice in editorial decision-making. The trial responded to the need for capacity-building in research from LMICs and placed minimal resource burden on participating authors, apart from requiring them to wait up to 6 months while corresponding with reviewers. It did, however, place a burden on peer reviewers, as reflected in the high proportion of those who did not implement the intervention. Recruiting early-career researchers as peer reviewers could improve the intervention while providing a valuable training opportunity. As the invitation to participate may have been perceived as patronising to authors, a redesign of this wording should also be considered.Our use of randomisation was intended to solve baseline differences but given low numbers in a small feasibility study we acknowledge the possibility of imbalance. Although we adjusted for country of origin, no adjustment was made for other baseline characteristics , as we assumed that randomisation would solve baseline differences. Our study was not designed to investigate whether or not institutional racism operates in journal editors' decision-making.Our results do not support the use of enhanced peer review in this form for submissions from LMICs as a means of optimising their chances of publication, whether in an indexed journal or not. However, a redesign of the intervention could be considered, following consultation with LMIC authors, and addressing issues such as the wording of the invitation to participate, the recruitment of reviewers most likely to deliver enhanced peer review, and the realistic administrative time resources of journal staff. Uptake might also be improved by sending the invitation soon after the rejection email, rather than as part of it, and including some preliminary verdict on how the paper could be improved, to provide something immediately and tangibly positive in the invitation.Other means should also be sought for achieving the aim of improving the representation of international research published in psychiatric journals. Journal editors should consider how they can change practice to achieve their goals of global legitimacyUpstream investment in research infrastructure is an avenue recommended by the World Health Organization, and global charitable foundations such as the Wellcome Trust may have a role in driving this. Examples include delivery of training in research methodology and scientific writing, mentoring opportunities, research collaborations and improved access to mental health research publications.Global foundations also have a role in improving the dissemination of research from LMICs, using digital technology to penetrate new readerships with the aim of improving mental health provision in all countries of the world. A combination of efforts at all these levels has the potential to achieve the World Psychiatric Association's goal of improving mental health provision in all countries regardless of local research resources, as well as improving LMIC research representation in biomedical journals.


Future Science OA! We are delighted to be celebrating our fifth birthday this year, which will also see us surpass 400 publications. In this Foreword, I will take a look back over our highlights from 2018, and look forward to what we have planned in 2019.Welcome to the first issue of volume 5 from Future Science OA content is now available in a ScienceOpen collection [2018 has seen us continue to disseminate our content in the traditional ways, as well as the novel. We now see 6% of our readers come through social media, which is a threefold increase on 2017. Furthermore, 2018 saw us partner with ScienceOpen, the research and publishing network. All We also supported the second iteration of the Future Science Early Career Research Award . This yeWith gender equality in the sciences continuing to be an important topic of discussion, we were delighted to see that all five finalists were outstanding female early career researchers – this bodes well for the future.Future Science OA [We have also been supporting researchers even earlier in their careers this year. The ChrisXandDrake Science Award is an initiative that promotes science in primary schools . This yeience OA . It was This year we have been reaching over 20,000 full-text readers per month, an increase of around 80% on 2017. With article numbers consistent, this highlights that our articles are reaching more and more readers, an indicator of impact and quality. In fact, each of our articles now reaches over 1000 readers on average. This includes readers both directly on our website, and on article versions hosted on PubMed Central.With the launch of our topic collections in 2017, we are now able to delve further into the overarching topics covered by our articles .These numbers are perhaps not surprising, given the large amount of research dedicated to the continually ‘hot’ topics that are oncology, drug development and infectious diseases. Our content highlights for the year reflect these hot topics.Our most-read article for 2018 is an Editorial from Benjamin Satterfield , discussing Nipah virus, a concerning paramyxovirus that is fairly well understood, but for which methods for prevention and cure are lacking . With neAnother article on infectious diseases featured in a top spot – a review of antimicrobial resistance mechanisms and novel ways to approach development of new therapeutics .There has also been an increasing interest in recent years in plants as a basis for pharmacological research. Another highlight for the year was a review examining the potential held in rosemary .In terms of research articles, which have made up 75% of our content this year, our highlights include an investigation of whether dietary glutamate could contribute to obsessive–compulsive disorder  and an iWe continue to place a high emphasis on author experience and can report that the average time from initial submission to post-peer review decision for 2018 was 36 days. From submission of a revision to final acceptance took an average of 7 days. 100% of our articles are promoted through our social media accounts, and on average we respond to all queries within 2 working days of receipt.Each year, we also look back over how our readers and authors have changed, to ensure we are reaching a global audience, and still meeting the needs of the worldwide community of authors.In 2018, our reader demographics were very similar to 2017, which is excellent to see . Our proAs with our readers, the geographical locations of our authors are relatively steady. Oceania is not represented on the chart this year as it was lower than 1% of authors; however, we have some excellent content in the pipeline, so watch this space.The journal could not be as successful as it is without the time investment made by our contributors. We thank the Editorial Board and Young Ambassador Panel for their continued support of the journal, as well as our authors and peer reviewers for the time they have spent helping us ensure our publications are scientifically sound and relevant. We continue to utilize Publons to reward our reviewers, and to provide discounts on article processing charges as a thank you for their time.With such a good 2018 behind us, we have now begun to look forward to 2019. We have some exciting projects planned already, including a special issue dedicated to early career research, in which we will be publishing insights into maximizing your career, and commentary on the challenges facing early career researchers. If you have a feature you would like to see in 2019, please get in touch.