Academic degrees following author names are often included in medical research papers. However, it remains unclear how many journals choose to include academic degrees and whether this is more common in certain types of journals. We examined the 100 highest impact medical journals and found that only 24 medical journals reported academic degrees. Moreover, this was substantially more common in journals based in North America compared with Europe. Further research is required to explore the implications of listing academic degrees on the readers’ attitude towards research quality. During submission of research papers to medical journals, authors are often asked to include academic degrees and/or affiliations. However, journals differ in how they present this information to readers. While some journals include academic degrees following author names, others choose not to list this information on the title page. To our knowledge, no evidence is available on how many journals choose to include academic degrees and whether this is more common in certain types of journals. Among the most influential medical journals, we examined journal factors associated with the inclusion of academic degrees on the title page.1 published in 2018. These journals constituted 4% of the total number of medical journals identified in Journal Citation Reports. Characteristics of each journal in regard to specialty, impact factor, primary journal focus, continent, and open access policy were obtained. Journals were categorized as “general” or “specific” based on subject area designation in Scopus2, i.e. whether content was primarily related to one specialty (e.g. cardiology) or multiple specialties. Data were collected on the presence of academic degrees following author names in the title page by assessment of multiple original research articles from each journal. The presence of academic degrees was defined as the inclusion of academic degree abbreviations following author names . Similarly, we collected data on fellowship designations and job titles following author names. Multiple articles published throughout July 2018 and August 2019 were assessed for each journal. No discrepancy of reporting academic degrees throughout the time period was identified. If there was any discrepancy between the print and the online version, the print version was used. Open access was identified based on open access designation in Scopus. Scopus registers open access as follows: “In Scopus, journals are registered as being OA journals only if they are registered as Gold OA or Subsidized OA at one or both of the following sources: Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources (ROAD)”3.We identified the 100 highest impact medical journals based on impact factor reported in the Journal Citation ReportsDescriptive statistics were used to characterize the journals. Categorical data were compared with the Fisher’s Exact Test and continuous data were compared with the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test. The association between journal characteristics and the reporting of academic degrees were estimated using multivariable logistic regression.Statistical analyses were performed in SAS (version 9.4). A two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered significant.Of the 100 highest impact medical journals, 24 journals reported academic degrees on the title page . We founAmong the 100 highest impact medical journals, only 24 journals reported academic degrees following author names on the title page. Reporting of academic degrees was substantially more common in journals based in North America compared with Europe.Each author's highest academic degrees should be listed, although some journals do not publish these4.” and the AMA Manual of Style writes “Journals should establish their own policies on the inclusion of authors' degrees.”5. Neither provides a rationale for providing academic degrees and it remains unclear why some journals do and others do not. The marked difference between journals published in North America compared with Europe cannot be explained by the current study but may be a reflection of cultural differences in attitude towards degrees and titles. To our knowledge, no studies exist on the impact of reporting academic degrees in medical journals. Further research is needed to explore 1) trends in reporting academic degrees, 2) the implications of listing academic degrees on the readers’ attitude towards research quality, and 3) trends in academic degree characteristics considering that specific journals have seen an increase in authors with bachelor’s and multiple academic degrees8.Listing author academic degrees is an editorial policy decision but there is little guidance from the International Committee of Medical Journals Editors (ICMJE) or the American Medical Association (AMA) Manual of Style. Specifically, the ICMJE states “Limitations of the current study include that we only evaluated high-impact medical journals. Furthermore, we only assessed some journal characteristics. We evaluated only recent issues of these journals and are therefore unable to comment on trends in the use of author academic degrees.In conclusion, we found that academic degrees are reported in about one fourth of medical journals and that this practice is more common in North America.https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KTWS6C9Harvard Dataverse: Replication Data for: Reporting of academic degrees in high-impact medical journals,This project contains the following underlying data:- CSV file with the titles of the medical journals investigatedCreative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).Data are available under the terms of theThe Journal Citation Report from Clarivate Analytics can only be accessed through an individual or institutional account.1https://jcr.clarivate.com/JCRLandingPageAction.action Accessed September 7th 20192 Accessed Dec. 5th 20193 Assessed December 5th 20194http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html#a Accessed September 7th 20195https://www.amamanualofstyle.com/view/10.1093/jama/9780195176339.001.0001/med-9780195176339-div2-10 Accessed September 7th 20196Haws BE, Khechen B, Movassaghi K,et al. Authorship Trends in Spine Publications From 2000 to 2015. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(17):1225–12307Schrock JB, Kraeutler MJ, McCarty EC. Trends in Authorship Characteristics in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 1994 to 2014. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(7):1857–18608Gu A, Almeida N, Cohen JS, Peck KM, Merrell GA. Progression of Authorship of Scientific Articles in The Journal of Hand Surgery, 1985–2015. J Hand Surg Am. 2017;42(4):291 e291–291 e296.9Stankovic, Nikola, 2019, "Replication Data for: Reporting of academic degrees in high-impact medical journals",https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KTWS6C, Harvard Dataverse, V1 The authors have addressed my comments and suggestions.I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Thank you for the opportunity to review the work of Stankovic and colleagues on the prevalence of reporting of academic degrees on the title pages of 100 leading medical journals selected based on journal impact factor. The resulting brief communication is short, clear and to the point.1,2,3 Readers of this brief communication will be interested to hear the authors’ take on their findings. My main question is why the authors undertook the study, and what they make of the findings? Do they believe that authors should receive public credit for the hard work involved in their studies? Do they believe that readers should take into account authors’ academic degrees when interpret research findings? Or do they find collecting and submitting information on academic degrees burdensome and pointless ? Or think that research should be judged on its merits and not on the qualifications of its authors? The latter point is particularly pertinent given the increasing discussion of including patients as authors on articles in medical journals.What was the impact factor of the top 100 journals? It would be helpful to know if the impact factor cut-off was 1 or 10. Or, to look at it a different way, how many medical journals are listed in total, and what % of those journals was included? This could be mentioned in the Methods or when discussing generalizability. While considering generalizability, the fact that the selected journals included both general and specialist journals, from both the US and Europe, and published under both open access and subscription models, is a clear strength of the study.Journals were characterized as ‘general’ or ‘specific’ – the authors should consider the alternative term ‘specialist’.The information the authors collected on fellowship designations and job titles is of interest. As the authors have collected it, perhaps it could include these in the main article on a descriptive basis, as a single short sentence in the Methods and Results.The following sentence needs splitting in two: “To our knowledge, no studies exist on the impact of reporting academic degrees in medical journals, why further research is needed to explore the implications of listing academic degrees on the readers’ attitude towards research quality.” For example: “To our knowledge, no studies exist on the impact of reporting academic degrees in medical journals. Further research is needed to explore the implications of listing academic degrees on readers’ perceptions of research quality.”Another idea for further research would be to study trends in the prevalence of reporting of academic degrees in medical journals. Furthermore, it would be interesting to look at how the degrees of authors  are changing over time. Perhaps you could include these ideas among your avenues for further research, and cite the references suggested by Marusic, which suggest that the number of authors with a Bachelor’s degree as their highest degree is increasing. Thanks again for the chance to review this interesting and worthwhile manuscript. I have some minor comments below:I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Thank you for raising some important questions along with adding insights into patient and public involvement in research through your suggested articles. Overall, our manuscript adds insights to the reporting of academic degrees in high-impact medical journals. However, it does not add insights to additional reasons for including academic degrees or authors’ perception of the submission process. We understand why the reviewer and readers may be interested in our take on the findings of the study. Despite this, we believe that it is necessary to keep this manuscript strictly descriptive, since any opinion on the raised questions may be considered to be of speculative nature. However, we believe that it stresses the need for additional research to address these questions scientifically. In the results section, we previously included that the median impact factor was 12 in journals reporting academic degrees and 15 in journal not reporting academic degrees. Upon review of your comments, we decided to include following sentence: “These journals constituted 4% of the total number of medical journals identified in Journal Citation Reports.”We agree that the term ‘specialist’ could be used when characterizing journals. However, we chose to characterize journals as ‘specific’ as they relate to a certain subject area. We believe that the term ‘specialist’ may cause equivocality to some readers, since journals who report on more general subject areas also provide specialist knowledge and research. Thus, we chose to keep the term ‘specific’. We included a few concise statements regarding fellowship designations and job titles in the Methods and Results sections as follows:Methods: “Similarly, we collected data on fellowship designations and job titles following author names.”Results: “Moreover, six journals reported fellowship designations and one journal reported job titles (online only), all of which included academic degrees.”We agree that further research is needed to address trends in the prevalence of reporting academic degrees and the characteristics of the academic degrees. Thus, we included following in the Discussion section: “Further research is needed to explore 1) trends in reporting academic degrees, 2) the implications of listing academic degrees on the readers’ attitude towards research quality, and 3) trends in academic degree characteristics considering that specific journals have seen an increase in authors with bachelor’s and multiple academic degrees.” 1-4.The authors addressed most of my comments and concerns, but I am still not sure that it is appropriate not to present references that studied academic degrees and authorship. While there is no overview of the practices in different journals, there is certainly research in individual journals. In biomedicine see here These studies justify the need for a comparison study and they also show that there can be valuable information if academic degrees are published in a journal article. I suggest to address these points.I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Overall, the suggested articles deals with trends in authorship and academic degree characteristics in specific medical journals. Specifically, studies 1-3 found an increase in authors per article and changes in the distribution of academic degrees among authors within their respective journals. Study 4 examined trends in publication from allopathic and osteopathic physicians, respectively. None of the studies directly dealt with the question we studied. Thus - after review of the suggested articles – we have decided not to incorporate the articles, since they are not directly relevant to the topic. I would like to applaud the authors' efforts in thoroughly reviewing their article. Again, this study raised a good insight into the importance of considering reporting academic degrees of authors as part of their affiliation in medical journals. I also agree that future studies are needed to assess the impact of reporting academic degrees of authors on the reader's behavior toward the article quality as well as on authors' satisfaction regarding the content of their affiliations.I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. This article addresses an interesting and intriguing question in publishing - why author's academic degrees are published in journals. Editorial guidelines mention this, but do not provide actual guidance. This research showed that journals from North America and from clinical disciplines are more likely to publish the degrees, which is an interesting finding, at least in high-impact journals. The manuscript is written clearly, as a brief report, and follows a logical order, with appropriate statistical analysis.There is no literature overview on this problem (or a statement that there is no evidence on this issue in literature).The description of the selection of articles in the set of 100 journals is vague. It is not clear what was the method for sampling "approximately ten articles ..." in the two study years. This needs to be clarified.  I have two major issues:I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Comment 1:“There is no literature overview on this problem (or a statement that there is no evidence on this issue in literature).”  Response 1: why journals report academic degrees or whether it has an impact on the readers. In this study, we evaluated whether high-impact medical journals reported academic degrees and whether certain journal factors were associated with reporting academic degrees. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of reporting academic degrees on readers’ perception of research.Thank you for raising an important point in the manuscript. To our knowledge – following literature review – there are no studies evaluating the impact of reporting academic degrees following author names in medical journals. We agree that a statement addressing that no evidence on this issue is available, will add valuable content to the manuscript. It should be noted, however, that the current study does not evaluateno evidence is available on how many journals choose to include academic degrees and whether this is more common in certain types of journals.”The following was rephrased in the Introduction section: “To our knowledge,To our knowledge, no studies exist on the impact of reporting academic degrees in medical journals, why further research is needed to explore the implications of listing academic degrees on the readers’ attitude towards research quality.”We chose not to include a statement addressing that no evidence is available on the impact of reporting academic degrees following author names in medical journals in the Introduction section, since it may be out of scope with our aim of the current study. However, an appropriate statement has been provided in the Discussion section: “  Comment 2:“The description of the selection of articles in the set of 100 journals is vague. It is not clear what was the method for sampling "approximately ten articles ..." in the two study years. This needs to be clarified.”  Response 2:We agree that this definition needs to be clarified. We evaluated numerous original research articles in multiple journal issues to assess any discrepancy in reporting of academic degrees over the time period from July 2018 to August 2019. This would account to approximately 10 research articles. No discrepancy in reporting academic degrees during this time period within each journal was identified.Multiple articles published throughout July 2018 and August 2019 were assessed for each journal. No discrepancy of reporting academic degrees throughout the time period was identified.”Following was rephrased to clarify this issue in the Methods section: “ Stankovic et al assessed the factors associated with mentioning academic degrees on the journal’s title page. The current study is interesting and sheds a light on an important topic, although the authors chose a restricted sample to analyze . I believe that the current report can be improved by clarifying some points within its methods section, as follows. In the methods section, the authors did not define “academic degrees”. In the data associated with this study, they included columns on “Academic degrees”, “job titles”, and “fellowship designations”. In medicine, reporting of fellowships might be more important than the academic degree, especially if the researcher is a clinician working in a non-academic institution. The authors should clearly define what they mean by “academic degree” that they used in their analysis.  In the methods section, the authors categorized journals according to specialty as general or specific. The authors should detail the basis of this classification. Moreover, the authors categorized open access status into yes, no, or partly, where “partly” is not a common word used to describe the open access status . By going back to the data, I observed several non-open access journals categorized as “partly”, so I would suggest adopting strict criteria for categorization, such as the one suggested by Scopus: “Open Access Journals are indicated as Open Access if the journal is listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and/or the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources (ROAD)”. In the discussion section, the authors should include studies that discussed the impact of an academic degree in publishing, which would complement the points raised by the authors in the present report.I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Comment 1: “In the methods section, the authors did not define “academic degrees”. In the data associated with this study, they included columns on “Academic degrees”, “job titles”, and “fellowship designations”. In medicine, reporting of fellowships might be more important than the academic degree, especially if the researcher is a clinician working in a non-academic institution. The authors should clearly define what they mean by “academic degree” that they used in their analysis.”  Response 1: Thank you for this comment, which we agree will add clarification on the definition of “academic degrees”. Since “fellowship designations” were reported in six medical journals only - which all included academic degrees – we decided not to include a separate analysis for “fellowship designations”. Job titles were present in one medical journal, and this was available online only, why we chose to exclude this category from the final analysis.“The presence of academic degrees was defined as the inclusion of academic degree abbreviations following author names .”Thus, we included following clarification on the definition of academic degrees in the methods section of the manuscript:  Comment 2:“In the methods section, the authors categorized journals according to specialty as general or specific. The authors should detail the basis of this classification.  Response 2: Agree. The medical journals were categorized as “general”, “specific” or “surgical” based on the specialty heterogeneity reported in the journal. Journals with high heterogeneity of reported specialties were categorized as “general”. In the statistical analysis, “surgical” was grouped with “specific”, since only two journals were categorized as “surgical”.However, to avoid equivocality, we have redefined the basis of our specialty classification for the journals. The journals are now classified according to subject area designation in Scopus. Consequently, the results have been adjusted according to this classification.2, i.e. whether content was primarily related to one specialty (e.g. cardiology) or multiple specialties.”Journals were categorized as “general” or “specific” based on subject area designation in ScopusThus, we included following phrase in the methods section: “  Comment 3“Moreover, the authors categorized open access status into yes, no, or partly, where “partly” is not a common word used to describe the open access status . By going back to the data, I observed several non-open access journals categorized as “partly”, so I would suggest adopting strict criteria for categorization, such as the one suggested by Scopus: “Open Access Journals are indicated as Open Access if the journal is listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and/or the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources (ROAD)”.”  Response 3:Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We agree with the need to adopt strict criteria for categorization (such as Scopus). We have adopted Scopus’ definition of open access. The journals within the dataset have been reassessed according to Scopus’ definition of open access, and the current dataset, results and manuscript reflect the changes accordingly.2. Scopus registers open access as follows: “In Scopus, journals are registered as being OA journals only if they are registered as Gold OA or Subsidized OA at one or both of the following sources: Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources (ROAD)”3.”“Open access was identified based on open access designation in ScopusConsequently, we have included following phrase in the methods section:  Comment 4:“In the discussion section, the authors should include studies that discussed the impact of an academic degree in publishing, which would complement the points raised by the authors in the present report.”  Response 4:Thank you for this comment. We agree that it would be valuable to include studies discussing the impact of an academic degree in publishing. However, to our knowledge, no studies have evaluated the impact of reporting academic degrees in journals, why it was not possible to include this in the discussion section.no studies exist on the impact of reporting academic degrees in medical journals, why further research is needed to explore the implications of listing academic degrees on the readers’ attitude towards research quality.”A statement has been provided in the Discussion section to address the lack of studies examining the impact of reporting academic degrees in publishing: “To our knowledge,


The year 2018 marked the 110th anniversary of Goldmann’s discovery that vascularization is an active process in tissues  that solet al. propose the fascinating theory that groups of neighboring endothelial cells can specialize in a distinctive sensory capacity and communicate the information on a large scale to other differently specialized cells. This organization, similar to swarm intelligence, provides a system-level sensing substantially greater than the capabilities of any single cell and more sophisticated than a scenario where all endothelial cells would be equally sensitive to extracellular cues  as soon as the required number of articles have been published, at which point indexing will be applied to all articles retrospectively.The journal is truly international, with an editorial board which includes representatives from around the globe. Expert strategic editors provide guidance and advice to the editorial team, and the world-class tier of senior editors have expertise across a broad range of subject areas, and are responsible for overseeing the peer review of submissions to the journal.Vascular Biology will be free for all articles during the launch years, offering authors far-reaching exposure and impact for their work at no additional cost.We strive to encourage collaboration for the benefit of biomedical science as a whole, and we are keenly aware of the need for an interdisciplinary approach to both clinical and basic research. Please submit your best work to the journal and show your support for this new endeavor. Publication in We look forward to receiving your submissions.The author declares that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of this editorial.This work did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.


Ahmad, ShaadLiu, KarenAtukorallaya, DeviLorenz, BirgitBlaner, William S.Lu, LinchaoBraendle, ChristianMarcoli, ManuelaBrand, ThomasMaves, LisaCampione, MarinaMuñoz-Chápuli, RamónCoultas, LeighNarayanan, S. PriyaCrawford, Bryan D.Noelle, DwyerDamjanovski, SashkoOsna, NataliaDu, ShaojunOsório, DanielDurand, Béatrice C.Oxford, JuliaDworkin, SebastianPal, KasturiErskine, LyndaPettitt, JonathanEsteve-Altava, BorjaPiekny, AlisaFantin, AlessandroPons, SebastianFay, DavidPopoff, StevenFlaherty, KevinPruyne, DavidFrancis, MichaelRasskin-Gutman, DiegoFrand, AlisonRichtsmeier, JoanGerhardt, ChristophSchneider-Maunoury, SylvieGreen, RebeccaShaham, ShaiGritli-Linde, AmelShlizerman, EliHall, David H.Sommer, Ralf J.Henry, ClarissaSucov, HenryIshizaki, YasukiTaghibiglou, ChangizIwata, JunichiTolwinski, NicholasJaurand, Marie-ClaudeTylzanowski, PrzemkoJohnston, ChristopherVadigepalli, RajanikanthKelly, RobertWingert, RebeccaKugler, Matthias ChristianZiermann, JanineLe Guellec, DominiqueThe editorial team greatly appreciates the reviewers who have dedicated their considerable time and expertise to the journal’s rigorous editorial process over the past 12 months, regardless of whether the papers are finally published or not. In 2019, a total of 20 papers were published in the journal, with a median time to first decision of 22 days and a median time from submission to publication of 51 days. The editors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the following reviewers for their generous contribution in 2019:


Macular holes have attracted significant interest over the last few years due to the progress made in imaging and pharmacological and surgical therapies. The tractional interaction between foveal tissue and the vitreous has been extensively studied to identify vectorial forces, as well as the role of different cell subtypes in the pathogenesis and repair of retinal alterations . At the This special issue encompasses cutting-edge research and review articles focusing on new perspectives on macular hole diagnosis and therapy. It includes novel research articles and reviews describing new insights into different types of macular holes, new instrumental OCT imaging, histopathology evaluations, and therapy. The main topics of the included manuscripts are summarized below to better classify and underline each topic.idiopathic macular hole, it is demonstrated that the dynamic forces caused by mobile posterior cortical vitreous with fluid currents exist already at early stages of macular hole development. A macular hole with a diameter of less than 250 μm may have more chance of closing spontaneously. In addition, these spontaneously closed macular holes possess some distinctive OCT characteristics. Metamorphopsia is significantly related to the deterioration of visual quality of life and can be used as an independent index to evaluate visual function before and after surgery. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify and review studies comparing SF6 to C3F8 gases as a tamponade agent in the intraoperative management of macular holes, with no evidence found to support C3F8 gas as the tamponade agent of choice for macular hole surgery. Finally, several clinical studies evaluated different approaches applying the inverted flap technique for recurrent and large idiopathic as well as myopic macular holes [In ar holes .lamellar macular hole, a clinical study which evaluated the two different subtypes of LMH found peculiar functional aspects due to their morphological features; tractional lamellar macular holes revealed higher visual acuity and retinal sensibility due to the relative preservation of the outer retinal layers compared to degenerative lamellar macular holes. Another clinical study demonstrated that an accurate diagnosis of full thickness macular hole, lamellar macular hole, and myopic macular hole is important to determine the most appropriate surgical treatment of these lesions. Different options may be selected according to the OCT and fundus autofluorescence imaging findings [In findings .traumatic macular hole, a review on its etiology and management discusses about the role of tangential and anteroposterior vitreomacular traction. This macular hole may also result from foveal photoreceptor atrophy following commotio retinae. Spontaneous closure can occur; however, vitrectomy combined to the induction of posterior vitreous detachment and inner limiting membrane (ILM) peeling (with or without an ILM flap to cover the macular hole) is associated with anatomic success rates of up to 100%. Another research paper evaluated the outcome of surgery with and without an ILM flap, underlining the benefits of the ILM flap technique.In myopic macular hole, an interesting review on surgical techniques underlines how myopic eyes still remain a challenge for vitreoretinal surgeons. Several and complex tractional mechanisms are implicated in the development of macular holes. The introduction of significant innovations for the treatment of myopic macular holes has allowed vitreoretinal surgeons to perform safe and effective surgery in these complicated eyes. Another research article on ILM peeling and inverted flap, which investigated the microstructural changes after successful myopic macular hole surgery, underlines that the inverted ILM flap technique did not affect the myopic macular hole healing processes compared to complete ILM removal [In  removal . Thus, t removal , 9.the histology of epiretinal proliferative tissue, the authors investigated the morphological characteristics and cell composition of various types of surgically excised proliferative membranes and internal limiting membranes. Cell components such as myofibroblasts, macrophages, and polymorphonuclear cells were recognized as the expression of cell migration and differentiation that induced an inflammatory process and a fibroproliferative repair process. The detection of pigments in specific types of epiretinal membrane suggested that retinal pigment epithelium cells might have a role in the development of these vitreoretinal disorders.In a research article on new experimental approaches in autologous cell transplantation as a new therapy, the application of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) described an adjuvant treatment for refractory and late-stage macular holes to be considered a promising direction. The combination of pars plana vitrectomy and MSC injections or MSC exosome application appears feasible, but the evidence regarding their safety needs to be expanded. Long-term clinical trials featuring control groups are still required in order to compare the efficacy of MSC applications with pars plana vitrectomy and other adjuvant techniques.In a review evaluating In summary, this special issue offers an overview of different types of macular holes, as well as providing new findings that may offer directions for new research in this important field.


Neurological Research and Practice. This journal is published by the German Neurological Society  in partnership with BMC, a part of Springer Nature.Welcome to the first set of articles from the new open access journal You may wonder whether there is a need for another neurology journal, given the continuously growing number of options available in which to publish your research.Neurological Research and Practice is different from other new open access journals. Firstly, this journal is owned and edited by the German Neurological Society and not by a commercial publishing company. Secondly, although we will provide open access, there will be no costs for authors in the first few years of establishing the journal; all costs will be covered by the DGN. Thirdly, this is the first and only English language publication by the DGN providing easy access to the broad spectrum of scientific activities coming from German neurology, especially the broad range of high quality work that just misses being published in the highest ranked general medicine journals or neuroscience specialty publications.Der Nervenarzt  still exists today and Aktuelle Neurologie (Thieme) was closed at the end of 2018. In 2018 another society owned, bimonthly German language publication called DGNeurologie was launched by the DGN.Historically, German neurology was connected to three German language journals; one of them was the „Zeitschrift Neurologie “ some 30 years ago), the journal The board of the DGN had discussed, for some time, the publication of an electronic-only open access English language journal to make the role and the achievements of German neurology more visible to an international audience. Although research papers from German neurologists are frequently found in leading international publications, in fact, most highly ranked journals frequently feature articles from German authors. Journal articles from German authors are among the most highly cited publications found in many main topics of modern neurology and neuroscience, such as stroke, neuroimmunology, epilepsy, headache, movement disorders, neuro-oncology and neurogenetics. Still, the actual role of German institutional and scientific neurology is not easily accessible to international readers. Not many experts know that the DGN has almost 10,000 active members and thereby is the second largest neurological society worldwide. Our annual congress attracts more than 7000 German-speaking neurologists and is also one of the largest national neurology conferences. In Germany neurology has evolved into the fourth largest medical specialty, has become very popular with young physicians and is one of the few medical disciplines in Germany that produce positive budgets.With that in mind, the board of the DGN decided to take the opportunity to launch the new journal, a decision that dates back a little more than a year. Since then, we have agreed on the scopes of the journal, the article types we want to publish, have created a large international Editorial Board representing all areas of clinical and basic neurosciences including also neurosurgical, neuroradiological, neuropathological, and neuropediatric expertise.Neurological Research and Practice will feature review articles, research articles, and clinical trial protocols, which will all undergo rigorous single-blind peer review. In addition we will feature abridged English versions of official guidelines approved by the DGN. Another special article type featured in the journal will be the publication of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that will allow a quick and comprehensive overview of state-of-the-art decision making. Finally, we will also feature articles dealing with historical aspects of German neurology in general and in specific areas of interest to German neurology, such as critical care neurology, palliative care neurology, neuro-ultrasound and others.As the Editor-in-Chief I have appointed section editors for guidelines (Dr Hans Christoph Diener and Dr. Christian Weimar), for SOP (Dr Gereon Fink and Dr. Julian Boesel) and for history of neurology (Dr Martin Grond and Dr. Axel Karenberg). As the journal grows, more topical section editors will be appointed.Neurological Research and Practice, running exactly to the schedule we had planned a year ago. As an old fashioned researcher and writer I am still used to the historical aspect of planning and collecting content to publish editions of a journal unlike the continuous publication model where articles are published monthly, as they are ready, which is our ultimate aim for this new journal. For this inaugural edition we have followed that tradition: you will find a spectrum of all types of articles and a broad view of different areas in neurology. This first ‘edition’ includes one review article on „Navigating choice in multiple sclerosis management“, two research articles dealing with the „Uptake of recanalizing treatment for stroke in Germany“ and an article from the US on „GCS 15: when mild TBI isn’t so mild“, an abridged version of the guideline „Cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale“, a SOP for „First-ever epileptic seizure in adult patients“ and a clinical trial protocol for a study comparing pallidal stimulation and botulinum toxin in cervical dystonia.I am delighted to present the first articles to be published in We will follow up this exciting issue with more articles in the forthcoming months from across the broad range of topics and article types covered in the journal.Neurological Research and Practice , feel free to give us your ideas for review articles as well as pass on your feedback and, when appropriate, disseminate and cite our articles. As the journal is open access your work will be highly visible and accessible to an international audience.I sincerely hope that you find this first set of articles interesting, inspiring and of a high quality. To reach our ambitious goals for the journal, we need your support. Please submit your research to Best regards.


International Journal of Infectious Diseases (IJID) was inaugurated in July 1996, 25 years ago today. In the opening editorial, Dr Donald ArmstrongIJID has continued to stand by the same mission that guides the Journal’s development.The IJID has grown from a quarterly journal in the 1990s through 2003, turned bimonthly in 2004 and has been published in monthly issues, totally online, from 2010. Adoption of the Open Access model, since 2013, has changed the landscape of academic publishing in the scientific community. While some academics remain sceptical about Open Access publishing [IJID has increased by more than 20-fold from 238 in 1996/1997 to 6,596 in 2020/2021. Highly cited articles were often those on emerging infections  and state-of art reviews of infectious disease management and four of the most cited papers were published in 2020 on COVID-19  occupy journal spaces especially at times of outbreaks. The dominance of manuscripts on different aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a large part of 2020 was phenomenal, which reflected very rapid generation of new knowledge and the need for efficient dissemination of scientific findings. In this connection, IJID supplements and complements the role of disease control agencies on an international level.With the increase in emerging diseases and the re- emergence of others, advances in diagnostics, therapeutics and changes in epidemiology, an increasing diversity of infectious disease subjects have been covered by IJID serves not just as a platform for the communication of research information but as an advocate for the fight against infectious disease threats. In response to the changing epidemiology of COVID-19, editorials have been published on the development of evidence-based strategy, including the inclusion of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in the WHO yellow card for travel [IJID must continue with this role as “a new international voice for prevention and control of infectious diseases.  [As the official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases (ISID), r travel , and manr travel . IJID muth anniversary of IJID, a ‘spin-off journal’ IJID Regions is being launched. This will showcase research with a regional focus, a perspective which has sometimes been marginalised in the IJID in the midst of fierce competition for publication space. Published work from regional research often does not just appeal to readers in selected regions but also can provide valuable lessons for those in other regions.The global population will continue to face the challenges of re/emerging infections, and threats from endemic diseases both internationally and in local regions. The field of Infectious Diseases research is predicted to grow further and the demand for publication outlets will increase. To mark the 25IJID Regions aims to (a) publish high-quality, evidence-based infectious disease science of regional interest and relevance; (b) enhance the visibility of regional research with a focus on those infectious diseases that are important in under-resourced countries and settings; and (c) publish research that can be utilized by national and regional health clinicians, scientists, health systems, and public health policy makers.IJID and IJID Regions are committed to providing a home for quality research of relevance in clinical and public health practice, as well as to supporting the education of emerging scientists and practitioners.IJID and preparing for the birth of IJID Regions. We look forward to contributing to global infectious diseases evaluation, diagnosis, treatment and control for the next 25 years and beyond.The current editorial team is indebted to our predecessors – Editors-in-Chief Dr Donald Armstrong (1996 to 2001), Dr Jonathan Cohen (2001 to 2006), Dr William Cameron (2007-2012) and their editors for laying the foundation of


Scientific journals play a critical role in research validation and dissemination and are increasingly vocal about the identification of research priorities and the targeting of research results to key audiences. No new journals specialising in health policy and systems research (HPSR) and focusing in the developing world or in a specific developing world region have been established since the early 1980s. This paper compares the growth of publications on HPSR across Latin America and the world and explores the potential, feasibility and challenges of innovative publication strategies.A bibliometric analysis was undertaken using HPSR MeSH terms with journals indexed in Medline. A survey was undertaken among 2500 authors publishing on HPSR in Latin America (LA) through an online survey, with a 13.1% response rate. Aggregate indicators were constructed and validated, and two-way ANOVA tests were performed on key variables.HPSR publications on LA observed an average annual growth of 27.5% from the years 2000 to 2018, as against 11.4% worldwide and yet a lag on papers published per capita. A total of 48 journals with an Impact Factor publish HPSR on LA, of which 5 non-specialised journals are published in the region and are ranked in the bottom quintile of Impact Factor. While the majority of HPSR papers worldwide is published in specialised HPSR journals, in LA this is the minority. Very few researchers from LA sit in the Editorial Board of international journals. Researchers highly support strengthening quality HPSR publications through publishing in open access, on-line journals with a focus on the LA region and with peer reviewers specialized on the region. Researchers would support a new open access journal specializing in the LA region and in HPSR, publishing in English. Open access up-front costs and disincentives while waiting for an Impact Factor can be overcome.Researchers publishing on HPSR in LA widely support the launching of a new specialised journal for the region with a vigorous editorial policy focusing on regional and country priorities. Strategies should be in place to support English-language publishing and to develop a community of practice around the publication process. In the first years, special issues should be promoted through a priority-setting process to attract prominent authors, develop the audience and attain an Impact Factor. Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is a relatively new field of specialisation in which diverse health and social science disciplines are converging with the aim of producing knowledge on the organised societal response to population health needs . HPSR asHPSR for low- and middle-income countries was first prioritised by high-income country development assistance agencies and academic institutions as well as by multilateral organisms through key initiatives such as the Council for Health Research for Development, the WHO-led Ad Hoc Committee on Health Research Relating to Future Intervention Options, the Tropical Disease Research and Training Programme, and the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research. More recently, the Millennium Development Goals and the movement towards Universal Health Coverage led to further strengthening of research capacity , 3.In the early 2000s, the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research reported the existence of a diversified research agenda in developing countries, focusing on health system-wide problems as well as on health services research. Greater attention was given to the community and hospital levels, with less emphasis on primary care or on topics such as policy process and information systems. Upper middle-income countries, including most in Latin America (LA), had a greater inclusion of topics such as health insurance, decentralisation, local health systems, equity and the policy process, suggesting the importance that researchers of the region give to the study of prevalent problems rooted in health system segmentation and inequity . The groHealth Policy and Planning, launched by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in 1986, the sole HPSR-specialised journal focusing in the developing world. While it is recognised that the future of HPSR will depend on diversifying its agenda, on enhancing the collaboration across health system actors and on its embedding in policy processes [HPSR capacity in developing countries has been strengthened across a wide range of health research system components, including training, the utilisation of research for policy-making and programme management , and resScientific journals play a critical role in research result recording, validation and dissemination, while their limitations for policy-making have been recognised and addressed through research translation , implemeResearch journals, particularly those on public health and HPSR, are increasingly playing an active role to promote research capacity and, especially, to influence policy. Given that HPSR is a highly contextualised field of study, it can be questioned if journals dedicated to publishing mostly on high-income country issues can also promote developing country priorities or peer review papers to effectively promote research capacity strengthening and policy impact. Arguably, academic pressure to publish on international journals with an impact factor (IF) is a powerful incentive to submit to international journals regardless of the specific benefits received. This situation also creates barriers to the emergence of specialised journals more appropriate to specific regions and topics.The Latin American Network of Health Policy and Systems Research was established in 2012 to strengthen research capacity in the region through supporting young researchers and discussing the research agenda and capacity strengthening needs. This paper aims to address the Network’s remit through exploring two related research questions, namely whether researchers are producing quality publications on HPSR for the region at rates comparable to those observed for the world as a whole and which are the alternative publication strategies to enhance the potential for quality HPSR publications, analysing their feasibility and challenges.https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php) and confirmed in the journal’s webpage. Journals were arranged into IF quintiles excluding outliers (PLoS One and Lancet). Emails of all authors were extracted for the period of 2011 to 2017 and used for the survey. Data was downloaded to Excel for processing. World and LA population totals were used to estimate the share of papers produced, based on estimates by Worldometers for current populations (https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/caribbean-population/).To address the production of quality HPSR publications in the LA region, the relative growth of HPSR journal articles and their concentration within journals with an IF were analysed. Articles of any type published on HPSR globally and for LA and indexed in Medline between 2000 and 2018 were selected using relevant MeSH terms (Box 1). The countries of the institutions to which each author was affiliated were classified as high income or as middle/low income. Chile was classified as middle income, even though it became a high-income country in 2013. The LA region includes all Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries in the continent and in the Caribbean. The analysis of HPSR articles by journal focused on IF Journals publishing the highest number of HPSR articles between 2011 and 2016. Articles published in mixed-scope journals were classified using the same subject and country MeSH terms, while all articles published by HPSR specialised journals were quantified according to country focus. IF journal board membership was analysed through journal websites to determine the percentage of LA participants based on the identification of Spanish or Portuguese surnames. To this end, the list of journal board members published in each journal’s website was inspected and a headcount was undertaken. IFs for 2016 were identified for each journal through Scimago Journal & Country Rank  were published in journals with an IF.A total of 48 journals with an IF were identified as publishing in the field of HPSR in 2016. Of these, 20 were fully specialised in the topic and the rest published articles within a broader medical and public health context. Five of these journals were published with a LA or pan American remit and by institutions in the region, of which three ranked at the bottom IF quintile distribution (IF = 0.27–0.98) and two in the fourth quintile (IF = 1.0–1.9). Specialised journals published 56.6% of the total papers on HPSR and 18.4% of HPSR papers on LA. The information available on the websites of 31 IF journals suggests that, among those specialised in HPSR, Editorial Board members from the LA region account for 1.5% of the total. This same figure is 2.8% for mixed-scope journals published outside the region and 41% for mixed-scope journals published within the region.n = 102) from 90 institutions accounted for 50.4% of papers.The top 10 journals publishing HPSR papers on LA accounted for 79% of articles published between 2011 and March 2016, each publishing 140 papers per year on average  , followed by Mexico and the United States  and particularly with specialisation in the LA region (P = 0.0003).The indicator of ‘Potential’ of the proposed editorial policy was positively associated with an editorial strategy of specialisation in HPSR  Table . Up to 3The aggregate indicators of ‘Feasibility’ and ‘Challenges’ of an editorial strategy including open access publication and publishing in a JWIF were not significantly associated either to individual researcher characteristics or with preferences for specialisation of the editorial strategy in HPSR or in the LA region.The present article analysed the volume of papers, HPSR specialisation, editorial governance and quality (as judged by their IF) of research journals publishing papers pertaining to HPSR in LA countries. On this basis, a survey was undertaken with researchers publishing in these journals to identify preference regarding specific publication strategies – HPSR specialised versus more generic health or public health journals; open access versus subscription-based journals; focus on the LA regional versus more generic or global remit of the journal; English versus Spanish or Portuguese language, and the IF status of the journal.This is the first study we are aware of that addresses the development of research journals as an area of concern in efforts to strengthen the HPSR system. To address this concern, we developed three indicators, namely the potential of an editorial policy, the feasibility of publishing in journals using an open access business model, and the challenges of publishing in new journals awaiting an IF. The three indicators have internal consistency, while only the indicator of ‘Potential’ – with the best consistency – was also the only one with significant associations to preferences for journal specialisation.Limitations to this research are its focus on the sphere of journals indexed by Medline and, for some analyses, restriction to those with an IF. MeSH indexing has a delay of a few months and up to a year, depending on the journal’s impact factor . This deThe sampling framework for researchers was based on Medline indexing for a period of 7 years, with the possibility that emails had changed during the period, leading to unrecoverable addresses. Data for editorial governance was limited to the identification of membership within editorial boards and this, in turn, was limited to the identification of probable nationality based on Spanish or Portuguese surnames. Response to the survey in English or Spanish by Portuguese speaking researchers could have restricted access, although this is considered a minor limitation.The LA region production of HPSR papers is growing twice as rapidly than the global production, although total papers are still three times below what would be expected given the region’s share of the global population. Production would be expected to be even greater than global averages given that most countries of the region are placed in the upper middle-income category. The greater growth of papers within a broad range of journals attests to a growing field with opportunity to leverage the region’s potential. Furthermore, global connectivity of HPSR researchers in upper middle-income countries as measured by co-authorship is almost on par with that in high-income countries . This siEducational policies as well as research capacity strengthening in countries of LA have led to increased publications, particularly in open access journals. In Brazil, one of the major drivers of the increase in publications in HPSR was the expansion of graduate programmes, with articles focused on the area of collective health quadrupling in number between 1996 and 2016 . ResearcIn this context, the low level of participation of editorial board members from the LA region is a concern, suggesting a limited capacity to promote and peer review research papers addressing regional and national priorities with optimal quality. The capacity to promote journals and to target research dissemination to policy-makers in the region may also be limited. However, evidence from research on the relationship between the IF of business journals and the national diversity of their board members suggests that diversity may not in itself be an important factor to ensure impact, as suggested by Petersen and Vogel . NonetheWhile IF is not the only relevant nor even the best criterion to assess the quality of journals , 25, theAfrican Journal of Health Professions Education, African Journal of Primary Health Care and Family Medicine, European Journal of Health Economics, Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care), while most HPSR papers worldwide are published in specialised journals. Furthermore, HPSR papers for the region are mostly published in Spanish or Portuguese in public health journals. This situation suggests that the most qualified international researchers publishing in HPSR-specialised journals may not be prominent members of peer-review networks in LA journals.The absence of journals specialised in HPSR and in the LA region is also a concern. It should be noted that not only Europe, the United States and Canada but also Africa have national or regional specialised journals in different fields of HPSR . However, specialisation in the LA region has a stronger association with the proposed editorial policy, as expressed by the indicator of ‘Potential’. This suggests that an approach to strengthen the number and quality of HPSR publications in the LA region should consider both regional and HPSR specialisation.The survey supported an editorial strategy based on open access, a commitment to publish within 3 months and with the support of a robust on-line submission platform. Also considered as important facilitators were a rigorous peer-review process supported by recognised regional health policy and systems researchers and the promotion of special issues on regional priorities. Researchers also considered as facilitators, although of less importance, an Editorial Board comprised in its majority of prominent LA researchers and policy-makers, and the publication by a well-renowned, international publisher.The benefits of open access publications tend to outweigh the costs. However, upfront payment for open access is challenged by predominant opinion that it is difficult to earmark research funds to pay for open access, while only a minority of researchers declared that their institutions have agreements with open access publishers. It is interesting to note that residence of researchers in high-income countries outside LA  is not significantly associated to a perception of lower barriers to open access publication.While researchers prefer to publish in journals with an IF, they also show a clear disposition to publish in a journal within a path to obtaining an IF in the context of special issues with prominent researchers and if the journal makes efforts to target dissemination to specific audiences. Publishing at no cost to the researcher or the institution during this period would facilitate the success of a new journal.The survey suggests that English language publication with optional Spanish or Portuguese translations could be a strategy to facilitate quality HPSR publications in the LA region. There is no question that the use of English language for scientific publications is increasing, with at least 75% of periodical articles in the social sciences and the humanities at global level being written in English . FurtherScientific writing in English is also controversial as it places non-native English speakers at a disadvantage and risks imposing language-based biases to the presentation of research problems and results . WritingHPSR publications for the LA region are lagging behind those for high-income countries with respect to quality and specialisation, while peer review and dissemination may be restricted due to publication mostly in Portuguese or Spanish or by journals without sufficient expertise in the region. Researchers publishing on HPSR in LA are supportive of editorial strategies enabling a growing specialisation of publications in the HPSR field and particularly in the LA region. This support can be interpreted as a felt need among researchers towards greater specialisation in the field and towards seeking greater global recognition for their research. Researchers also support an open access publication characterised by a recognised Editorial Board, quality peer review, timely processing and a robust platform.The preferences expressed by HPSR researchers in the LA region could be fulfilled by existing journals if they increased their expertise and their focus on HPSR and on the region through special sections or other editorial strategies. However, the support for specialisation both in HPSR and in the LA region, for academic English as the main language of communication and for an expert Editorial Board, all point towards the support for the launching of a new journal. The survey also indicates a new open access journal is feasible, while the challenges faced by a new journal in gaining an IF can be overcome through specific strategies. Global experience with academic English as a medium of scientific communication also points towards benefits and strategies to overcome its costs.This research suggests the merits of assessing new publications in HPSR based on the potential of an editorial policy, the feasibility of open access publication and of the challenges faced by the waiting period prior to obtaining an Impact Factor. To ensure success, a new journal should clearly differentiate itself in terms of HPSR for the LA region and should strengthen the community of health policy and systems researchers to focus on literacy and peer-review skills. Special issues should be promoted through a priority-setting process to attract prominent authors, develop the audience and attain an IF.Economic barriers to open access need not be a deterrent as efforts can be made to secure funding for special issues. Such funding could come from regional and national, large-scale research projects as well as from government ministries of health or science and technology institutes, from regional multi-lateral agencies such as the Inter-American Development Bank, and from non-profit donors. Funding should be sufficient to cover article processing charges as well as an executive editorial team, capacity strengthening and dissemination efforts.Health systems in the region have developed since the 1930s following models that were not always best suited to addressing local realities. Reforms in the 80s and 90s led to a wide array of health systems with important lessons for equity, quality and efficiency. Academic institutions in the region are well developed and ready to assume greater responsibility for strengthening their capacity to publish HPSR at the global level as well as to invite greater global participation in addressing regional research problems. A journal on HPSR informed by a regional perspective could contribute to further deepening the analysis of challenges, promoting research priorities and consolidating evidence-informed decision-making.Additional file 1. Appendix 1. Academic institutions of respondents. Appendix 2. Respondents’ countries of residence.


Apidologie has steadily gained recognition as a journal that reports results from high-quality scientific research on the biology of bees, and this means Apidae in general, not only on its most prominent species, the Western honey bee, Apis mellifera. All started 50 years ago in a conversation between two eminent scientists, Jean Louveaux, director of one of INRA’s bee research unit in Bures-sur-Yvette and editor of the French Annales de l’Abeille, and Friedrich Ruttner, director of the Bee Research Institute in Oberursel and editor of the German Zeitschrift für Bienenforschung, where they discussed the possibility of merging these two journals to create an international bee research journal. Here, we take Apidologie’s 50th anniversary as an opportunity to provide our readers with background information on the journal’s history, especially on the persons and their contributions along this journey.Since its foundation,  Apidologie had its birth date, the situation of scientific journals in biology was entirely different. For many decades, beekeepers, birdwatchers (ornithologists), and many educated citizens were interested in the newest scientific results in their special field of interest, and many of them read and paid for journals covering a broad array of subjects within these areas.Nowadays, in the era of online and open-access publishing, scientific journals are frequently created by publishers who then search for and assign editors. Fifty years ago, when Annales de l’ Abeille and the German Zeitschrift für Bienenforschung, which served for many years the above-mentioned demand and had a wide distribution, both among bee scientists and beekeepers. However, with the fast development and progress of scientific techniques, it became increasingly difficult for beekeepers to understand scientific publications. Accordingly, many of those subscribers gave up reading the more science-oriented articles, and finally stopped ordering the journals. Hence, with decreasing subscribers, the economic basis became more and more risky for these two leading honey bee journals from France and Germany, and the proposal to merge was a reasonable move.Among these were the French Apidologie, from its beginnings until present times, presenting the persons and institutions and their contributions to the journal’s history. By providing glimpses into backstage events, we take this milestone 50-year anniversary as a unique opportunity to bring the journal closer to its current readers in the bee research community.Here we review the history of Apidolgie, Jean Louveaux and Friedrich Ruttner . He also was the editor of Annales de l’Abeille, which had its first issue published in 1958 by INRA. Friedrich Ruttner was Austrian and Director of the Institut für Bienenkunde in Oberursel near Frankfurt, Germany, and he was also the editor of the Zeitschrift für Bienenforschung that had its origins in 1950. The journal was published by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Bienenkunde e.V. in association with the Deutsche Imkerbund (DIB).Already for a long time, the two idealizers of r Figure , were clZeitschrift für Bienenforschung, the decision to merge Annales de l‘Abeille with Zeitschrift für Bienenforschung was made. Apidologie was born! The name Apidologie was chosen, as it is the same word in both French and German , even though the latter is not an owner of the journal. With this configuration of a now editorial trio, the first period and decade in the life of Apidologie effectively ended, and what comes thereafter is a continuing story of success of the journal.With the entry of Hachiro Shimanuki and John D. Vandenberg, there were now Apidologie, and he also had ongoing research projects until the end of the 1980s. The editorial trio Louveaux, Ruttner, and Shimanuki/Vandenberg continued to run the journal until 1987. Jean Louveaux retired in 1984 from his position at INRA but still continued as editor until 1987, when he was replaced by Gérard Arnold, also from INRA. In the same year, John Vandenberg stepped down and was replaced by Walter Steve Sheppard, who had just joined the USDA laboratory in Beltsville. These were the next-generation editors, who continued to run the journal together with Ruttner until 1995, when Ruttner stepped down , a small, learned societies publisher with its headquarters in Les Ulis, France, had won the bid to publish Apidologie after the contract with Elsevier had ended. EDP Sciences did not throw a champagne reception, as this was then out of fashion but was an important companion for Apidologie until 2010, providing assistance to the Managing Editor and organizing the marketing and subscription sales.While democratic, on the one hand, this required an intense exchange of information among the editors, while on the other hand, the communication on submissions and the respective decisions on acceptance or rejection turned out to be an important platform to maintain the journal’s cohesiveness with regard to scope and its projection within the bee research community. This flux of manuscripts and information meant, of course, a lot of work for the Managing Editor, Christiane Courant, especially while still done via postal mail and later e-mail. A big help for her was the implementation of an electronic submission platform offered by the publisher EDP Sciences, but of course, this platform first had to be configured to match https://www.apidologie.org/. Those after 2010 can be accessed at https://link.springer.com/journal/13592. These special issues include a particularly remarkable one dedicated to the 80th birthday of Friedrich Ruttner  are freely available from INRA’s HAL server .Actually, all issues of As in 2008/2009, several of the long time Editorial Board members, Steve Sheppard, Stefan Fuchs, Marla Spivak, as well as Jean-Noël Taséi and Jacqueline Pierre, had announced their retirement from the Editorial Board, an intense search for new members became necessary. As shown in Figure Apidologie Editorial Office in Avignon, so a long negotiation with INRA was necessary to find and appoint a substitute for her among the INRA staff, and this was Anne Dufay. In hindsight, this was probably one of the really decisive steps that kept the Apidologie ship afloat.The most crucial challenge in 2009, however, was the replacement of Christiane Courant as Managing Editor Figures  and 5. SThis composition of the Editorial Board and Managing Editor continued until 2017, when increasing submission numbers and new topics, especially bee-plant relationships, landscape ecology, and more and more molecular approaches to all kinds of bee research required a search for additional editors. In 2017/2018, these were Alexandra-Maria Klein, as German editor, who unfortunately could fulfill this task only until 2019, Michelle Flenniken as American Editor, replacing Stan Schneider. In 2018, Cedric Alaux from INRA, and then in 2019, Mathieu Lihoreau entered the team as new French editors, and now, in 2020, Zachary Huang and Sara Diana Leonhardt filled gaps in the team as new US and German editors, respectively. Furthermore, Anne Dufay retired in 2017, after serving for 9 years as Managing Editor. Again, INRA agreed to find a replacement for her, so as of 2017, the Managing Editor position is now held by Marianne Peiffer at the INRA center in Champenoux near Nancy.Another change that came in 2010 was the end of the publisher contract with EDP Sciences. EDP Sciences had been a supportive publisher, providing important editorial support, such as the journal’s first online submission platform, and conducting a marketing strategy that guaranteed the journal’s financial stability. This was in times when the publishing of scientific journals underwent major changes, with the increase in the number of online-only electronic journals (eliminating printing and shipping costs) and Open Access as a new business model, alternative to the traditional, subscription-based model.Apidologie kept its print version together with the already available online version. It also adopted a hybrid business model, continuing the subscription-based journal sales and, at the same time, offering authors to have their articles immediately accessible to all public through payment of an Open Access fee. This business model was implemented by EDP Sciences, and as of 2011, continued as part of the contract with the new publisher, Springer Netherlands, which had won the bid in 2010 for publishing Apidologie until 2020. Independent, however, of which company is the publisher, it is no secret that what keeps a specialized journal healthy, both financially and scientifically, is a solid editorial policy that seeks quality over quantity.Financial resources were declining for institutional libraries, so they could afford less and less the journal subscription fees, which, at the same time, increased with the growing monopolization among scientific publishers. The movement towards Open Access, with the immediate availability and general accessibility of scientific data also for non-subscribers, put the financial burden for publishing now on the shoulders of the scientists and the institutions that financed their research. Apidologie’s Editorial Board since its beginnings, and in this quest, the editors strongly depend on ad hoc reviewers for the analysis of submitted manuscripts. These are the unsung heroes behind the scenes in every serious journal, and even more so, they do this for free, as part of their dedication to science. Hence, here we now take this unique opportunity to thank all the reviewers for their invaluable input to Apidologie along these many years.Scientific quality first has been a commitment of Apidologie and, returning to its French-German origin, what could be more appropriate to say than these two sentences to summarize the 50 years of Apidologie: “Fünfzig Jahre sind kein Honigschlecken” and “Cinquante ans ce n’est pas une mince affaire” (50 years is not a honey lick/50 years is not an easy task).With this, we end our excursion into the history of


Audiology Research (ISSN 2039-4349) is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal. It was launched in 2011 and published over the past nine years by PAGEPress Publications [rch ISSN 039-4349 Audiology Research from PAGEPress this year [I am pleased to inform you that MDPI has taken over the publication of his year .Audiology Research is to publish contemporary, ethical, clinically relevant scientific research related to basic science and clinical aspects of the auditory and vestibular system and diseases of the ear. This cutting-edge research can be used by clinicians, researchers, scientists and specialists to improve understanding and treatment of patients with audiological and neurotological disorders. The journal publishes original articles, review articles, brief report, case report, comment and reply, conference report, book review, and communication. In addition to publishing regular review and research articles, the journal also publishes “Hot Topic” thematic issues that are guest-edited by scientists in their areas of research.The mission of Audiology Research, which is more dynamic and interactive. Together with the redesigned website, an enthusiastic submission requires an energetic and dedicated editorial board to ensure that your article will be reviewed and published rapidly. As Editor-in-Chief I am starting a process of enrichment of the journal by inviting other eminent scientists to join the editorial board to further raise the scientific level and visibility of the journal.MDPI editorial offices launched a redesigned website for Audiology Research. Since the journal is published by a leading publisher, MDPI, a rapid online publication of submitted articles will allow accepted articles to be available to the research community in a truly short time. We will also have special issues by prominent scientists on the most interesting research topics.I strongly encourage you to submit your work to be considered for publication in Audiology Research. We look forward to working with our editorial team, our reviewers, and authors, and the MDPI publication team to ensure the growth and success of Audiology Research. These administrative and editorial initiatives are meant to improve the management of the journal, to strengthen its editorial perspective , and to expand its readership.We are looking forward to receiving your submissions and welcome your ideas and comments for


Young researchers and novice authors face lot of difficulties to document their research work and get it published due to lack of guidance and proper training in the art of scientific writing. This manuscript provides some important information and highlights some useful tips for novice authors which if followed in letter and spirit will minimize the trauma to their manuscripts with increased chances of publication in standard peer reviewed biomedical journals even those with Impact Factor. Other authors will also find it helpful to know the details related to the whole publishing process. I had an enormous craving to write a brief communication after reading a manuscript “Publication Audit” and “editorials” recently published in Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences regarding “common reasons for not accepting manuscripts for further processing after editor’s triage and initial screening” and “challenges faced by medical editors”.4th 2020, shows the current Impact Factor of these three journals Jawaid SA et al. in one of the editorials published in Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences (PJMS) stated that number of submissions on the journal website has rapidly increased because, at present, only three biomedical journals enjoy impact factor including Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences (PJMS), Journal of Pakistan Medical Association (JPMA) and Journal of College of Physicians & Surgeons Pakistan (JCPSP). They are covered by Clarivate Analytics USA Web of Sciences. The Journal Citation Report issued by Clarivate Analytics on June 30“not accepted for further processing” if rejected during initial screening before external peer review.2Manuscripts are labelled as Failure to follow author’s instructions on journal website.Lengthy manuscripts.Poor English and Grammar.Letter of undertaking not signed by all listed authors.Too many authors with strong suspicion of gift authorship.Poor literature search resulting in old references.Too many submissions for journal to handle due to human resource and financial constraints.Failure to provide Ethics Committee/IRB approval of study protocol.Editor’s bias in choosing manuscripts with interesting topics.It is well known that authors are impatient in getting their manuscripts published as early as possible hence, they are labelled as the most dangerous pressure group for the editors.4Managing authors who are unfamiliar with online submission system.Initial screening.Formatting of accepted manuscripts.Managing external review (sending online or printed copies according to reviewer’s choice).Reviewing the reviewer’s comments to edit them to tone down harsh comments and omitting comments made for the editors themselves.Improvement in English language and grammar.Analyzing the manuscript along with response from corresponding author to reviewer’s comments to take decision of acceptance or rejection.Final editing process and responsibility for the quality of manuscript accepted for publication.Managing corrections in the pdf file a head of publication if authors do not know how to do it.Finally managing left over corrections before printing the issue.Editors are under constant pressure of increased workload and they do need sympathy and encouragement instead of harsh remarks and comments from authors. Cutting long story short, it is not an easy job for editors to make authors, reviewers, and readers happy owing to multiple task performance.4Keeping in mind the whole publication process and editor’s workload, being novice author myself, I want other novice authors to benefit from few essential tips which I am sharing here:Make a draft version of your study using conventional headings .If you are writing an article from your thesis, take a detailed review of your supervisor on that draft to correct it according to the instructions of your supervisor and keep making changes and taking feedbacks till the major issues are sorted out.Once the draft is ready, search for journals according to your preferences. Search four to five preferred journals and send them emails regarding your intention of submission with the title of your study or you can even share the abstract. Few journals allow authors to first share the abstract on email to get an opinion about processing of the manuscripts.Wait for few working days and if any journal responds to your query or asks you to submit, it simply means it is an active journal and you can send your manuscript there. This tip is important for all the novice authors.Decide now who will be the corresponding author as he/ she should be familiar with e-journal system, scope and aim of journal with all other requirements such as word count and formatting.Considering you the corresponding author, read few recently published articles of the targeted journal along with instructions for authors given on the journal website and modify your manuscript accordingly.Next step is the submission phase which needs corresponding author to get registered on the journal’s website. Usually, the corresponding author needs to provide the following supplementary files along with main manuscript:Covering Letter; Addressing to editor, mention title along with significance of the study.Authorship Letter: It is usually provided by the journal and one needs to fill it up following the ICMJE  authorship criteria which was last revised in 2018 to prevent gift authorship.7Make sure number of authors should be less especially when you are a novice author as it will produce good impression on the editor.Clearly define roles of all authors according to ICMJE criteria of authorship and take signatures from all .All authors should declare their contribution towards manuscript writing and final approval and make themselves accountable for integrity of their research.Ethics Committee / IRB approval.Evidence of processing fee submission (non-refundable).Any other supplementary file .You know the quality of your manuscript either it has some important message, does it add some new information to the medical literature or if there are chances of its further citations, only then consider submitting it to an Impact Factor Journal otherwise select some other good quality journal to avoid disappointment of rejection from an IF Journal. In case of submission to IF journal, make sure to visit their website and if possible, add few relevant references from there which will further increase the chances of your manuscript being accepted because the Editors of IF Journals are always conscious and keen to improve their existing Impact Factor.Make sure that you highlight the strengths of your study and also include Limitations of your study under a separate sub-heading as a part of the discussion in the last paragraph.Upload your manuscript along with all the supplementary files carefully. Upload the structured abstract and key words in Meta data on the journal’s website and make sure while uploading the manuscript text, it should be in one file starting from title page till conclusions. Title page includes names and affiliation of all authors, e-mail and contact number of corresponding author, total word count, total number of images and tables and a short running title within footer. Usually at initial screening stage, majority of the manuscripts are not accepted for further processing and the journal might convey the deficiencies to the corresponding author after initial screening which is also known as internal review.Please wait at least two-three months after acceptance at submission stage and then you can humbly ask editor about progress on your manuscript by providing title and ID Number. Do not get frustrated as you are dealing with your manuscript only, but for the editor, there are number of manuscripts waiting to be processed at different stages of publishing process. Therefore, keep waiting and have patience.Always plan for at least six to eight months from submission to publication. Standard Impact Factor Journals may take from six months to over a year from the submission till final acceptance and publication. Keep in mind that initial screening, plagiarism check, formatting and then uploading this formatted manuscript on the website takes couple of weeks as there is no short cut.When you are asked to revise the manuscript in the light of reviewer’s comments received from the journal, respond to each and every comment carefully. Be honest in case you cannot respond to any of the point or you do not agree with the reviewer’s comments, politely convey your views to the Editor and also give reason or reference if any. Honesty is appreciated by the Editors. Highlight all the changes and additions made to the initial manuscript to ease Editor’s task in making quick decision, otherwise the revised manuscript will have to be sent to the reviewers again and it will take additional time.Make sure all the listed authors have read and approved the revised manuscript before resubmitting with the covering note stating how you have addressed the reviewer’s comments point by point.After acceptance, editor will send you the pdf file for proof reading. Convey the corrections immediately if any, so that it can be processed further and finally gets published. This is a routine process for most of the standard journals.The manuscript after corrections may be published on journal’s website ahead of print. Some journals who do have acquired DOI number, generate and allot these numbers before ahead of print publication. So, the manuscript will have DOI number only without page numbers. Have a look to ensure that the corrections you already conveyed have been carried out and if few are missed, there is still time to get it corrected. Point it out immediately to the Editor and request for doing the needful.Once all the manuscripts scheduled to appear in a particular issue are finalized, then page numbering is done and pdf files are made once again and then published. This process may take two to three days and during this period your earlier published manuscript may disappear from the journal’s website since new pdf files are under process.Those journals who are covered by PubMed Central and are visible on PubMed, Medline through PubMed Central, while going ahead with the pint copies also arrange to get the XML files made. This software and facility is unfortunately not available in Pakistan so far hence, they get it prepared from overseas and after checking, it is then uploaded on PubMed and this process takes about four to five weeks before these manuscripts are accessible on the Medline. Be patient and do not send e-mails to the Editor inquiring about visibility of your manuscripts on Medline which will only irritate the Editor.HAPPY PUBLISHING NOVICE AUTHOR


Tom Sheldon’s article published in July 2018 entitled ‘Preprints could promote confusion and distortion’ . Here weThe dictionary definition of a preprint is:‘something which is printed in advance, especially a part of a work printed and issued before general publication of that work’ .In the scientific publishing world this definition has been extended to include mounting work online and prior to peer review:‘Preprints are early versions of scientific articles, posted online prior to peer review.’The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) define a preprint as:“a scholarly manuscript posted by the author(s) in an openly accessible platform, usually before or in parallel with the peer review process’ .As others have pointed out, preprints are not new . TraditiPreprints have a long history in the physical sciences . In the The preprint sceptics’ and critics’ arguments are well documented . Sheldonn=4) and nature of the responses, with one stating that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks; the second being concerned about the possibility of fake data in preprints; the third emphasizing concerns that are more about authentic journalism than authentic research results; and the final one being about the definition of manuscripts and preprints. He also admits that he does not yet have examples of harm from journalists rushing to write about early findings showing e.g. that a common vaccine is unsafe.Sheldon further describes how he is not reassured by the responses to an open letter ‘The preprint dilemma: good for science, bad for the public? A discussion paper for the scientific community’ . HoweverLancet, are not immune from authors failing to declare conflicts of interest and publishing work that is subsequently retracted. This is exemplified by the now infamous paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield and colleagues on the proposed causal link between the measles mumps rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism and bowel disorders [As the scientific community is all too aware, peer review is imperfect and even perceived high-quality journals, such as the isorders . This paisorders . Howeverisorders .We understand that some authors and journalists have concerns about preprints , but preCitable preprints allow authors to establish priority for the work they have done by providing a public record. This is so well accepted that most funding bodies, including UKRI , WellcomJAMA in early 2018 [Preprints are open access by their nature, meaning that they are easy for other researchers to find and cite. One study in rly 2018  found a Preprints can supplement traditional peer review by allowing a wide circle of peers to discover the work and contact the author with suggestions for improvements that might be made.One author, H. M., notes that ‘for Early Career Researchers, where the timeline of publication, etc., is out of our hands, and for whom publication is so important when transitioning between postdoc positions and up, simply demonstrating that the work has been done and is available, is in my opinion so important’.Others have presented the counterarguments . The perAlthough there is no formal peer review prior to posting, the articles are effectively available for all to see and comment on.The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) view draft preprints as prior publication and thus unacceptable as manuscript submissions [Science state that, ‘reporting the main findings of a paper in the mass media can compromise the novelty of the work and thus its appropriateness for Science’ [Novelty is a key criterion for classic journal acceptance. Although they are in the minority, journals such as missions . SimilarScience’ .Current funding for the major preprint servers is from non-profit agencies and concerns have been raised regarding sustainability and archiving costs .Nature argues for a synergy between preprint and traditional peer review, stating that ‘rapid dissemination in a preprint server and high-quality peer review and promotion through publication in a scientific journal should, in our view, go hand in hand’ [It appears that most publishers are now of the opinion that preprints and publications complement each other. in hand’ .The value of preprints is becoming accepted throughout the life science community. Crossref, the body that registers DOIs, reported in May 2018 that preprints were the fastest-growing research output: around 30 % over the two years 2016–2018, compared with article growth of 2–3 % .Microbiology, notes thatTanya Parish, Editor-in-Chief of Microbiology supports the use of preprint servers. We recognize the role they play in the rapid dissemination of information, similar to posters and oral presentations at scientific conferences. In support of this, we accept submissions to the journal made directly from bioRxiv.’‘’ tag remains sound sense for preprints – as indeed for all sources to be evaluated by scientists and journalists – we also believe that science benefits from openness. Kalai Mathee, co-Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Medical Microbiology, echoes this message:Preprints are not new, and neither is the debate that surrounds them. However, the tide is surely turning toward acceptance of the advantages over the disadvantages. Whilst the ‘reader beware‘Preprints provide a fantastic vehicle for rapid dissemination of significant findings, and offer both a viable time-stamp to the research and, importantly, a fair attribution of the discovery. However, we caution the readers, and in particular, the journalists to remain vigilant as the material has not been vetted by peer-review.’To reinforce our commitment to preprints, we have implemented a service that allows authors to deposit articles in bioRxiv and submit from there directly to any of the Society journals. We encourage all authors to take advantage of the service and join the preprint community .At the Microbiology Society we believe that preprints help to advance science, and we encourage authors to deposit a preprint in the online server bioRxiv or in their own institutional repository.