We thank our many readers, , and authors who have found their way to the journal for this achievement. Article downloads have increased from 13,472 (2013) to 474,632 (2020) and manuscript submissions from 178 (2013) to 842 (2020). This increased visibility may be both a cause and consequence of the journal’s selection not only for Web of Science, but also MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). We also have our own Wikipedia page  and several PME articles have been featured on the KeyLiME podcast [In 2021, While we are thrilled with this great success, it also brings greater responsibility. PME must continue to serve the field by empowering readers and authors, and must do so using a sustainable journal model. In this editorial, we outline our plans for the coming years.Our plans focus on collaborative scholarship between education researchers and educators, championing open science, taking an evidence-informed approach to running PME, and supporting the development of junior scholars.PME will continue supporting scholarly conversations on the cutting edge of educational research and clinical education. The journal’s mission is to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and health professions educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding the education practices of clinical health professions. We wish to place PME within the overlapping interest areas for scientists and educators, also known as Pasteur’s quadrant . BalanciWe are committed to contributing to knowledge translation and dissemination of research insights through publishing concise papers written in clear language. Health professions education researchers often use complex research methods, and complex and abstract theories. Our goal is to ensure these studies are reported in articles that are approachable for every interested teacher willing to look up a few words in a dictionary. We have an ambition to move beyond traditional PDF papers and adopt new forms of scholarly engagement as they emerge by capitalizing on the affordances that current technology provides.PME will continue to fully support open science. We are a non-profit open access journal generously supported by the Netherlands Association of Medical Education. The journal is free of charge for both authors and readers, and authors retain their article’s copyright. We believe that being open access has greatly contributed to PME’s popularity. However, as we continue to grow, we must continue to investigate sustainable publishing models to ensure a robust future for PME. For example, we must ensure that we are able to handle our increasing popularity with an eye towards potentially expanding the number of articles we can publish. To this end, we are exploring alternate models to understand how other open access journals have navigated these challenges.Beyond open access, we encourage authors to deposit preprints. See our editorial on preprints for more information on this topic . AdditioBMJ and PLOS, we have instituted a policy to study PME. In 2022, we will publish a special issue on meta-research [We believe that an evidence-based journal approach can support the development of both PME and our field. Therefore, we aim to critically examine PME by conducting meta-research both internally  and externally . Thus, in alignment with journals such as research .We want to support junior scholarship not only through publishing papers, but also by offering internships. We believe that fostering the field of health professions education begins by providing opportunities for junior scholars to engage in apprenticeship and on-the-job learning as members of our editorial board. We will publish the details of this new initiative in 2022.With these plans, we strive to make Perspectives an exciting and thought-provoking journal that caters to the interests of all those involved in healthcare education.


Our mission is to encourage authors to submit high-quality and innovative research promoting medical advancements. In the past two years, manuscripts submissions have tripled in number and were enriched by a more diverse pool of authors with global representation, resulting in an increase in the number of published issues moving from being a biannual to a triannual journal. Additionally, the number of articles published in an issue has doubled. QMJ continues to be an open-access peer-reviewed journal, publishing original research work, reviews, editorials, and case reports that are particularly relevant to medicine and free of charge to authors. It is indexed in several renowned and highly ranked platforms such as PubMed Central, Scopus, Scimago, Google Scholar, and the Directory of Open Access Journals. It was also recently indexed in the World Health Organization's Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR). We look forwards to becoming the highest-rated medical journal, in terms of impact factor, regionally.It is with great pride that we celebrate the 50


Proceedings B, the breaking news of the new COVID variant of concern B.1.1.529 ‘Omicron’ is dominating the headlines and leading us to think ‘here we go again’. Despite considerable success in vaccination campaigns in some countries, the COVID pandemic will be a recurring constraint on our lives until vaccine supply and inequality issues are solved and a significant proportion of the global population is vaccinated. So, although I had hoped in my editorial for 2020 that this year might see a significant reduction in the disruptions that we experienced last year, the latest news suggests that masks, social distancing, travel restrictions, and video-conferencing are likely to be with us for some time. Despite these ongoing challenges, Proceedings B continues to weather the storm and we have adjusted to pandemic restrictions effectively. Although journal staff at the Royal Society were allowed into 6–9 Carlton House Terrace towards the end of 2021, most still prefer to work from home and thus avoid commuting into London. This has in no way influenced the editorial process and every two weeks throughout 2021 Proceedings B has been able to showcase the latest findings in organismal biology. Although our submissions in 2021 dropped by roughly 8% compared with the preceding year, a pattern evident across all Royal Society journals, in 2020 we experienced an equivalent bounce in submissions; perhaps as a consequence of the first year of the pandemic. As a result, we are currently now at pre-COVID submission levels.As I write my annual review of the year at Proceedings B within a few years (see below). Our times (in median days) to first decision (15), final decision (60), and from submission receipt to publication (88) have remained steady and are within target times. Our current projections are approximately 2730 submissions by the end of 2021. We received submissions from numerous geographical regions, with the largest numbers to date coming from the USA (587), UK (286), China (234), Australia (141), Germany (126), Canada (115), Japan (90), France (76), Spain (64), and Sweden (52). Like many international science journals, we struggle to attract submissions from certain global regions, such as South America, Africa, and the Indian subcontinent, and we encourage those of you who have collaborators and colleagues in these regions to consider suggesting that they submit their work to Proceedings B. The impact factor for Proceedings B improved in 2021, rising from 4.637 in the previous year to 5.349, and the journal is ranked 13th out of 93 journals in the Journal Citation Reports category for ‘Biology’.From 1 January to 31 October 2021 we received 2276 submissions, a decrease of 339 articles in comparison with the same period in 2020. Of these submissions, the proportion that was rejected was very similar to the preceding year . So far this year, 505 articles have been accepted for publication and of these 215 are open access, a significant increase over 2020 when we published 132 in this category. This upward trend is encouraging because of the recent decision by the Royal Society Publishing Board to make the transition to full open access for Proceedings B and remain a popular forum for providing timely overviews of ‘hot areas’ in the biological sciences. Reviews editor Innes Cuthill has done an excellent job of maintaining a steady flow of reviews on diverse topics, and during 2021 he received 93 proposals of which 73 have been approved for submission and 19 have been published. Our biannual review by the President's Award Winner of the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution was ‘Network ecology in dynamic landscapes' [Review articles written for a general audience are published in every issue of Proceedings B, ‘The stagnation paradox: the ever-improving but (more or less) stationary population fitness' [This year's annual Darwin review in fitness'  by Hannafitness' , Kokko sProceedings B, which involve collections of articles on a single theme chosen by the Editors based on the submission of proposals. Both will appear shortly. ‘Evolution in changing seas' edited by Katie E. Lotteros, Molly Albecker, and Geoffrey Trussell (Northeastern University Marine Science Center) advances our understanding of evolutionary change in marine systems. A particular focus of the special feature is on determining the appropriate experimental designs and statistical approaches for robustly testing hypotheses in an environment that often presents challenging logistical problems for data collection. Papers encompass examples across the tree of life and help to bridge knowledge gaps on the evolutionary biology of marine systems. Our second special feature ‘Stability and manoeuvrability in animal movement: lessons from biology, modelling and robotics edited by Andrew Biewener (Harvard University), Richard Bomphrey , Monica Daley , and Auke Ijspeert  concerns the integration of engineering approaches for solving the problem of how animals achieve stability in their movement through complex environments. Through modelling and experiments, including the use of diverse bioinspired robots, new insights on behaviours associated with predator–prey interactions, mating, obstacle avoidance, and navigation are being discovered using these approaches.This year we commissioned two Special Features in Proceedings B and during 2021 we introduced a new subject area for research articles—Biological Applications—concerned with the application of concepts in the biological sciences for solving problems of environmental and societal relevance. We introduced this category to take advantage of the burgeoning growth in applied research of relevance to policymakers and managers of biological resources. We encourage submissions on a wide spectrum of topics including agroecosystems, biotechnology, genetic resources, food security, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, wildlife biology, restoration ecology, land use management, invasion biology, human health and epidemiology, environmental pollution, and pest, disease, and weed control. For submissions to be successful they should integrate basic biological concepts and their practical applications in a question- or hypothesis-driven framework. Authors must also indicate explicitly how their results have practical implications for the problems they are addressing and also their general relevance. Submissions that are too specialized focusing narrowly on a particular system or case study are not encouraged. We particularly welcome interdisciplinary studies, and in common with other research articles in Proceedings B, submissions should be of outstanding scientific importance and broad general interest and follow our standard requirements for research articles. This new subject area has proven to be popular with our authors and to date we have received 111 articles making up 5% of all submissions to Proceedings B.We continue to broaden the scope of articles published in Evidence Synthesis and Biological Science Practices—continue to attract interesting papers, several of which have received considerable media attention. So far there have been 71 submissions, 17 of which have been published in the Evidence Synthesis article type, and 11 in Biological Science Practices. Online collections of published articles in these two categories are available at: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/topic/special-collections/evidence-synthesis and https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspb/biological-science-practices. These collections provide ample testimony to the increasing diversification of content in Proceedings B and illustrate how the journal is transitioning from its former status as primarily an ecology, evolution, and behaviour journal to one that now includes articles on all aspects of fundamental and applied biology as well as how biological science is practised and its policy and management implications.Two additional categories of articles that we recently introduced—bioRxiv. This initiative, the first among Royal Society journals, has proven to be highly successful and Maurine has expanded her Preprint Editorial Team to include around 30 members from many different countries with a particular focus on early career scientists. In 2021, 45 papers have been submitted to the journal via the preprint route, 17 have been accepted, 18 rejected, and 10 are still in review. For those interested in reading an article on the preprint solicitation process, how it originated and how it is implemented at Proceedings B, a valuable summary was written by Maurine and her colleagues which was recently published in our Biological Science Practices article category [https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2021.1248.Maurine Neiman (University of Iowa) continues with her work as Preprint Editor for the journal taking advantage of the submission of unpublished articles to the preprint server Proceedings B along with Proceedings A, Biology Letters, and Interface should have no subscriptions or access controls for their 2026 volumes. It is proposed that progress toward this objective will be made in two main ways: (i) a gradual increase in the number of authors individually opting for open access publication, as seen since 2006 and especially this year, as awareness and funder support for open access and article processing charges (APCs) grow; (ii) the continued development of transitional ‘read and publish’ type arrangements with institutions and consortia around the world. This second mechanism is a new one but the Publishing Board has negotiated several agreements for 2022 and there is a strong pipeline of further deals at various stages of development. These transitional deals will have the effect of a more rapid, stepwise increase in open access take-up as the authors in the eligible institutions are able to take advantage of unlimited, APC-free open access to the journals. A waiver policy will also be in place for authors from disadvantaged countries and for those without funding.The Royal Society Publishing Board has recently agreed that the Society's primary research journals should aim to make the transition to full open access mode over the next 5 years, following a recommendation by the Council of the Royal Society. This means that Proceedings B a ‘must-read’ for biologists interested in breaking discoveries in the biological sciences. A particular thanks is in order to those Associate Editors who will retire at the end of 2021. I hope that your work with Proceedings B has been challenging but rewarding and has provided opportunities to communicate and develop friendships with other board members and staff. A striking feature of the Editorial Board of Proceedings B is that the vast majority of those whom we initially contact accept our offer, with many choosing to stay on for a second term. This year we successfully recruited 16 new Associate Editors, 62% of whom are female, thus maintaining the near gender parity  on our Editorial Board.To wrap up this year's editorial I extend my sincerest thanks to all members of the Editorial Board for their hard work in making Proceedings B as a board member arises from the professionalism of the office staff in London who make the job a lot less arduous than might be initially envisioned. I would like to thank our Editorial Team in the London office, consisting of Editorial Coordinators Jennifer Kren and Callum Shoosmith, and Production Editor Simon Clackson, for their conscientious work in making sure that Proceedings B runs efficiently. Lastly, I would again like to thank the Publishing Editor of Proceedings B, Shalene Singh-Shepherd, to whom I am especially grateful. Her dedication and wise counsel to me and all the Editorial Board has been exemplary, especially given that we have all experienced another challenging year.There is no doubt that part of the satisfaction in working for


International Journal of Women's Dermatology (IJWD), we have taken an all-encompassing look at how to champion diversity and inclusion in our publication. Gender and racial diversity are not only limited to issues specific to women's health or care of patients with skin of color, but also include diversity in authorship as well as our editorial team, and the professional development of our female and male dermatology colleagues of different transgender/gender minority/sexual minority backgrounds. We have embraced diversity in our authorship, diversity in our colleagues, diversity in the literature, and diversity in our patients and the issues that they face regarding their dermatologic health, creating a model that can be emulated in journals throughout different fields of medicine.Diversity in publishing is, in and of itself, a diverse concept. To be truly inclusive and embrace diversity in our dermatologic literature, it is critical that the chief editors and the editorial board of the journal examine how they are actively creating a culture of inclusion within and for their publication. Indeed, the concept of diversity includes issues regarding gender, race, and transgender/gender minority/sexual minority issues and extends beyond the medical content of what is published within the journal. With regard to the The editorial board of the IJWD consists of two co-editors in chief, one deputy editor, and 32 associate editors. In terms of female representation on our editorial board, we have a higher percentage of female associate editors compared with the editorial boards of all other dermatology journals. In their article, “Representation of Women as Editors in Dermatology Journals: A Comprehensive Review,” In terms of international presence, we have 11 editors from countries outside of the United States , including Argentina, Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, India, Iran, and Switzerland. On our advisory board, 4 of 14 members are from countries outside of the United States (29% of the advisory board), including Brazil, Germany, Israel, and the Philippines. In terms of ethnicity, we have 24 editors of Caucasian descent , 2 editors of Black descent (6%), 2 editors of Middle Eastern descent (6%), 2 editors of Latin American descent (6%), and 5 editors of East Asian descent (14%). Finally, our advisory board also has physicians specializing in internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, psychiatry, and ophthalmology, providing input from within the house of medicine and guide the development of the journal so that our publications are germane to physicians within various fields of medicine who care for patients in conjunction with our dermatology colleagues.As editors, we appreciate the importance of including first names in medical journals and congress publishing as a tool for assessing gender diversity in the medical literature. For many years, medicine was the prerogative of men, and physicians used titles and surnames to address each other more formally. Articles were published using surnames and initials, which makes it difficult to ascertain academic output of women. It becomes almost impossible to assess whether journals and congresses are providing sufficient opportunities for women without the use of full names. Another reason to include full names is the number of similar names in countries where there are limited surnames, such as China or Korea. Since its inception in 2015, the IJWD has been including the first names of authors to highlight the contribution of women to the articles we publish. A key initiative of both the Women's Dermatologic Society (WDS), as well as the IJWD, is to support professional female dermatologists through mentorship, leadership opportunities, and guidance regarding personal and professional development. In January 2020, Dr. Michi Shinohara, a special-issue editor for the IJWD, developed a gender gap special issue modeled after her course for the American Academy of Dermatology . A totalThe WDS and the IJWD value diversity and inclusion in our field. To this end, we have published an array of articles specific to fostering the personal and professional development of our colleagues with skin of color within dermatology. In this September 2021 issue of the IJWD, As co-editors in chief, we have embarked on initiatives to both increase the skin-of-color content of our publication and create a baseline metric for how dermatology journal skin-of-color content can be tracked over time. These two strategic initiatives were performed with the intention of promoting a culture of inclusion within our publication. The March 2021 issue of the IJWD featured 24 invited publications written on topics ranging from diversity within dermatology, allyship and advocacy, and diseases directly related to pigmentation and high hair curl type prevalent in skin-of-color populations . In thisThe focus of the IJWD is on the dermatologic health of women and their families. This range of topics includes but is not limited to the role of hormones in the development of acne and alopecia; the skin manifestation of metabolic syndrome and polycystic ovarian syndrome; skin cancer risk specific to women; clinical considerations when managing chronic dermatologic conditions ; the safety profile of dermatologic medical and cosmetic therapy in pregnant and breastfeeding women; the impact of esthetic procedures on body image and body dysmorphic disorders; chemotherapeutic concerns in dermatologic skin care in women with cancer; skin disease specific to women who are aging in menopause, pregnant, or breastfeeding; skin disease of the vulva and vaginal area; vaginal rejuvenation; and ethical issues when caring for dermatologic issues of women and their families. But importantly it also includes issues for our colleagues and patients with issues regarding gender minority and transgender dermatology, as well as gender minority and sexual orientation bias in the workplace. We have published articles related to transgender and gender minority patients , and thiUltimately, we believe editors, editorial boards, and publishers should be encouraged to critically examine diversity in their publications, including an annual assessment with metrics indicating how effectively a culture of inclusion has been fostered. Currently, journal success is evaluated through bibliometric milestones, such as Scopus scores, number of submissions and citations, and impact factors, but the culture of inclusion that the journal has built should also be factored into an evaluation of a journal's impact on its subspecialty and the importance of that journal in the field of medicine and within society.1)Examine editorial board and advisory board make up, including race, gender, ethnic background, and country of origin, the latter particularly pertaining to international journals.2)Examine how the publication supports professionals from different backgrounds.3)Examine the gender, race, and ethnic background of its authorship.4)Examine topics published to foster knowledge of gender differences, skin of color content, sexual minority, gender minority and transgender issues, when appropriate.We encourage evaluation metrics thatIt is ultimately the development of a culture of inclusion, a strategic initiative that is purposefully and thoughtfully executed by editors and editorial board members, that brings change to our society. Editors have a great responsibility in deciding what information is disseminated to medical professionals and the public in a peer-reviewed platform, where potentially more weight is placed on the validity of the findings published due to the rigorous review process for the published articles. It is easy to state that the inequity in our literature is not being addressed by the stream of articles submitted to the journal, but what if, as editors, we take the initiative to invite publications that directly address this inequity in our literature? Or to encourage research that would address these inequities? Or to welcome voices that would otherwise be unheard? The best counter action to discrimination against populations that have been marginalized in the past is to be intentional in preventing that discrimination from continuing. The onus is on us as journal editors to create a welcoming and inclusive environment that embraces our differences and is enriched by the knowledge and insight that results when these differences are identified, classified, analyzed, and studied. Diversity is important, but the development of a culture of inclusion on our editorial boards, in our authorship, and within our publication is the key to unlocking new material that benefits both the majority and the minority, the male and the female, the mainstream and the marginalized. Encouraging the voices of the marginalized is the essence of what allows for the creation of this culture. Therefore, fostering a culture of inclusion is vital to gaining access to the benefits of diversity. Let the marginalized of the past be heard for all of us to reap the benefits of inclusion.


Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC): the new opportunities offered by the shifting landscape of scientific publishing, the stunning progress happening across science but particularly in those areas central to JBC, and the enduring foundation of the journal itself, built on over a century of thoughtful and respectful stewardship , held webinars (https://youtu.be/Dduwng8GFwc), updated data availability policies , we created curated emails to share the exciting papers in JBC to a broad audience, we launched the Editors’ Pick Highlights articles to bring attention to key findings published in JBC, and we began a program of editing titles and abstracts to enhance their readability and accessibility (sibility . We alsosibility . We hearCare about the authors-to-be. Many scientists who were doing science back in the 20th century are well aware of JBC’s important role in the scientific publishing landscape, but younger generations have grown up in an era where many new journals have been and continue to be launched, creating a maze to navigate in order to connect with JBC. To break down some of those obstacles and help advance the careers of these researchers, we have created an Early Career Reviewer board (er board , redesiger board . MoreoveCare about the reviewers. JBC’s associate editors and editorial board members play critical roles in evaluating papers, contributing their own best work, and charting the course of JBC’s future (s future , 10. TheCare about the staff. While the editors play a visible role as the scientific stewards of the journal, the ASBMB staff plays an often silent but no less critical role in the success of our endeavor. Without their extensive knowledge, their ability to support every aspect of journal operations, their care and patience in working through complicated situations with editors and authors, their enthusiasm in highlighting our content, and their creativity in solving problems, there simply would not be a JBC.The changes and innovations described above, along with many more small but important updates, could not have happened without the support of ASBMB and the contributions of the entire JBC team. What a wonderful group of colleagues! I thank all of you from the bottom of my heart—it has been a joy working with you!So now, it only remains to pass the baton and encourage the next Editor-in-Chief to continue to enrich JBC. My term ends at the end of June. My successor has not been named as of this writing, but Fred Guengerich will take the reins as the interim Editor-in-Chief until the next editor is appointed. I am confident that Fred, the new Editor, and the entire team will continue to pilot this wonderful journal to a bright future. A toast to them, to our authors and readers, and to JBC!


Over recent years, the research community has been increasingly using preprint servers to share manuscripts that are not yet peer-reviewed. Even if it enables quick dissemination of research findings, this practice raises several challenges in publication ethics and integrity. In particular, preprints have become an important source of information for stakeholders interested in COVID19 research developments, including traditional media, social media, and policy makers. Despite caveats about their nature, many users can still confuse pre-prints with peer-reviewed manuscripts. If unconfirmed but already widely shared first-draft results later prove wrong or misinterpreted, it can be very difficult to “unlearn” what we thought was true. Complexity further increases if unconfirmed findings have been used to inform guidelines. To help achieve a balance between early access to research findings and its negative consequences, we formulated five recommendations: (a) consensus should be sought on a term clearer than ‘pre-print’, such as ‘Unrefereed manuscript’, “Manuscript awaiting peer review” or ‘’Non-reviewed manuscript”; (b) Caveats about unrefereed manuscripts should be prominent on their first page, and each page should include a red watermark stating ‘Caution—Not Peer Reviewed’; (c) pre-print authors should certify that their manuscript will be submitted to a peer-review journal, and should regularly update the manuscript status; (d) high level consultations should be convened, to formulate clear principles and policies for the publication and dissemination of non-peer reviewed research results; (e) in the longer term, an international initiative to certify servers that comply with good practices could be envisaged. Over recent years, the research community has been increasingly using preprint servers to share manuscripts that have not yet been peer-reviewed, enabling quick dissemination of research findings, and in some cases to obtain peer feedback to improve the final version submitted to a journal . RelevanPreprints (i.e. preliminary reports of work not yet subject to peer review) are increasingly posted online on websites such as the well-known MedRxiv, arXiv and bioRxiv –8, as weThough peer review remains the de facto source of quality-assurance in scientific publishing , it doesThe WHO has established a platform bringing together approved clinical trial registries , and a sshould, or ever will in any case be printed. Additionally, “pre-print” sounds very close to “Epub ahead of print", which indicates a peer-reviewed article that is being listed electronically before being typeset [Despite the caveats provided in various servers, preprints can still be confused with peer-reviewed manuscripts. The name “pre-print” itself may further encourage misunderstanding. The term implies that the manuscript will be printed or published, thus inferring a level of quality sufficient for publication. It may also raise expectations that the manuscript  typeset .imprimatur, i.e. that the contents have already be approved, which may increase the probability that they are widely promoted and disseminated before a robust external evaluation. A clearer term should be chosen instead of ‘preprint’, such as ‘Unrefereed manuscript’ or “Manuscript awaiting peer review” or ‘’Non-reviewed manuscript”, to avoid preventable misunderstandings.For some users, especially those who are not involved in the scientific publishing process, such as journalists, politicians, policy-makers, and the general public, this language implicitly suggests a sort of The COVID19 pandemic has created a global “hunger” for scientific information to inform policy and the general public. In the 5 months prior to the COVID19 era (1/8/2019 to 31/12/2019), 14,078 preprints were posted in MedRxiv and bioRxiv. This number increased by 61.2% to 22,691 in the first 5-months of the COVID19 era (1/1/2020 to 31/5/2020), including both COVID19 and non-COVID19-related preprints. Preprints have become an important source of information for a variety of stakeholders interested in COVID19 research developments, including traditional media, social media, and policy-makers. But the philosophy of preprints, i.e. that errors will get fixed over time as the scientific community crowdsources and opines on the findings –20. Numeall preprint servers should state, as does MedRxiv [We need a balance between early access to research findings and its unwanted negative consequences, such as the rushed adoption of policies unsupported by evidence on efficacy and safety, and misplaced or unrealistic expectations from the public, policy-makers and stakeholders , 24–27.  MedRxiv , that “P MedRxiv , 15. Thi MedRxiv .Lancet Group journals and opted to post pre-prints at submission, had posted all this information, i.e. ethics approval if needed, declaration of interests, funding statement, and prospective registration for randomised controlled trials [As the term “preprint” may cause misunderstanding about the nature of these manuscripts, consensus should be urgently sought on a clearer term, such as ‘Unrefereed manuscript’ or “Manuscript awaiting peer review” or ‘’Non-reviewed manuscript”.Key caveats about unrefereed manuscripts , should be prominent on the first page of each preprint, and each page should include a red watermark stating ‘Caution—Not Peer Reviewed’.Pre-print servers should require authors to certify that the manuscript will imminently be -or is- submitted to a peer review journal; to regularly update the status of the manuscript ; and to disclose their pre-print history.High level consultations should be convened with relevant stakeholders, including but not limited to the ICMJE, COPE and WHO, to formulate clear principles and policies for the publication and dissemination of non peer-reviewed research results, and to further disseminate such principles and policies to the scientific community.In the longer term, an initiative to certify servers that comply with agreed good practices could be envisaged.While preprints can help to make new evidence-based knowledge rapidly available to the scientific community, and perhaps improve scientific transparency , these bd trials . Thus, td trials , should d trials  should bd trials , and app


Critical Care was launched in 1997, already a quarter of a century ago! I remember very clearly when the late Professor David Bennett first called me from London to propose developing a new Journal devoted to our discipline of critical care medicine. I refused categorically, arguing that we had enough scientific journals in the field and that adding another one would only increase unnecessary competition. David wisely argued that a meeting with Vitek Tracz would make me change my mind. Vitek was willing to come to Brussels and discuss it with me and after just a few minutes of conversation, I was quickly impressed by his knowledge, enthusiasm, and vivacity. Vitek, already the founder of the Current Opinion journals at the time, had a real sense of scientific publishing and remarkable vision for the future, including all the likely technological developments and the benefits of open access. I was also seduced by the concept of a scientific community around a publication process, developing consensus statements, practical recommendations, and sometimes provocative editorials and commentaries. This was a concept that Vitek initially called the ‘critical care forum’.It’s difficult to believe, but Critical Care always aimed to be innovative, ‘to support the development of new ideas and to be at the forefront of advancements in the field.’ As such it was among the first journals to adopt an open access system with all its advantages (Box) with the print format completely abandoned back in 2006.The success of the journal over the years is clearly shown by the steady increase in the number of submissions, now standing at more than 2000 a year! Importantly, this success lets us be more selective in which papers we choose to accept, with a rejection rate exceeding 70% over the last 5 years and even 80% for the last year Fig. .Fig. 1ArThe journal’s reach has increased simultaneously, with the number of yearly article downloads likely to pass 10 million this year Fig. . Social Importantly, the journal’s editorial and publication teams work fast, so that important articles are published rapidly. The time to first decision for all manuscripts has decreased from 20 to 12 days over the last two years, and the time from final acceptance to publication is now less than 3 weeks. This rapid turnover encourages and motivates authors to submit to the journal, and ensures readers receive the very latest, up-to-date results, reviews, and opinions.Critical Care over the past 25 years. We would like to thank all those who have taken part on our editorial board and/or reviewed our articles, the editorial team for their professional expertise, and the critical care community for their trust and support.We are so proud of the developments at Of course many challenges remain, not least regarding how to improve and ensure diversity, equity, and inclusivity, and we look forward to facing them together over the next exciting 25 years.


Zootaxa, focused on zoological taxonomy, was suppressed from the Journal Citation Reports . A prompt reaction from the scientific community against this decision took place exposing myths and misuses of bibliometrics. Our goal is to shed light on the impact of misuse of bibliometrics to the production in taxonomy. We explored JCR's metrics for 2010–2018 of 123 zoological journals publishing taxonomic studies. Zootaxa, with around 15 000 citations, received 311% more citations than the second most cited journal, and shows higher levels of self-citations than similar journals. We consider Zootaxa's scope and the fact that it is a mega-journal are insufficient to explain its high level of self-citation. Instead, this result is related to the ‘Zootaxa phenomenon', a sociological bias that includes visibility and potentially harmful misconceptions that portray the journal as the only one that publishes taxonomic studies. Menaces to taxonomy come from many sources and the low bibliometric indexes, including JIF, are only one factor among a range of threats. Instead of being focused on statistically illiterate journal metrics endorsing the villainy of policies imposed by profit-motivated companies, taxonomists should be engaged with renewed strength in actions directly connected to the promotion and practice of this science without regard for citation analysis.Taxonomy is essential to biological sciences and the priority field in face of the biodiversity crisis. The industry of scientific publications has made extensive promotion and display of bibliometric indexes, resulting in side effects such as the Journal Impact Factor™ (JIF) mania. Inadequacies of the widely used indexes to assess taxonomic publications are among the impediments for the progress of this field. Based on an unusually high proportion of self-citations, the mega-journal  These metrics have been adopted as major means of research assessment by many countries as the sole measure of the quality of the research produced in their universities and institutes. Generally, funding for research in these institutions is derived from the taxes paid by the citizens of their respective countries. This policy produces a sort of quest or JIF mania for publishing in higher-ranked journals )Watchmen, written by Alan Moore, fits well here.Although the use of JIF is not recommended for ranking human beings , its imp. 4.2Undeniably, exploring biodiversity is a core issue for the entire biological sciences (and humanity). In this context, taxonomic research is an essential priority in face of the current biodiversity crisis . The conZootaxa (https://bit.ly/34kXmgm) but not strictly enforced by the journal. This rule would partially explain its high level of self-citations. However, this strategy is deeply misleading, because original descriptions, especially the old ones, are often not adequate for species characterization and recognition. A more straightforward approach would be to make clear which concept of species is being adopted and provide the bibliographic source .Taxonomy is currently considered a science in crisis affected by losses of positions in institutions and reduction of funding resources. In addition to this scenario of gradual loss of workforce and grants, the discipline is also damaged by the biases or inadequacies of these so-called indexes of ‘quality' (see ). This srce (see ). Anothe. 4.3Zootaxa during the last 10 years, we feel comfortable to offer an opinion on the journal and its impact in the taxonomic world, an actual phenomenon that transformed it into the leading vehicle for making new zoological names available.As authors of papers on distinct zoological taxa, editors of special issues, and reviewers of manuscripts submitted to Zootaxa has become a prestigious forum for promotion and discussion of all topics of taxonomic science and thus reached a distinguished position among other similar journals. Unquestionably, the birth of the journal was a milestone to the field of zoological taxonomy. Started in 2001 with a hybrid platform of publication , when 300 pages were published, the journal increased to 32 330 pages in 2010 [Zootaxa's site). In its first decade, Zootaxa has made available about 20–25% of the new nomina per year [Zootaxa has been the first choice for a legion of young taxonomists for their very first papers. The relatively high JIF of the journal is certainly among the reasons for this choice. Furthermore, for those zoologists who are not primarily taxonomists but who eventually decide to publish a taxonomic paper, the journal is also probably the first choice, if not the single one known. Indeed, Zootaxa is so influential nowadays that a somewhat pejorative term, ‘Zootaxa author,' has been coined, meaning those researchers who only publish in the journal or have a massive amount of their papers in it, reaching 80% or more. Why this phenomenon? Why does a journal congregate such a huge parcel of publications in a field? Is this situation actually good for taxonomy?Since its establishment,  in 2010  and endeper year . In the per year . DespiteZootaxa was the single big (or mega) journal in the field designed to attend taxonomic science, even though several smaller journals also published most of their issues with a high amount of taxonomic papers. Today, Zootaxa has competitors with the advantage of having either Gold Open Access (GOA) or DOA policies, such as the European Journal of Taxonomy (first issue published in 2011) and ZooKeys (first issue in 2008). However, in the case of ZooKeys, a minimum APC of €700 is required for mandatory open access; this is a huge obstacle, especially for researchers from developing countries, outside the group of those countries considered of lowest income, who do not automatically qualify for a fee waiver. The Zootaxa initiative from Magnolia Press Ltd was so successful that it stimulated the creation of some new journals, including Phytotaxa, its sibling version dedicated to plant sciences. Data on Magnolia Press, which is based in New Zealand, is not easy to obtain; for instance, it is not clear to us whether it is a for-profit or not-for-profit organization.For almost a decade, Zootaxa cannot be denied and it has become the most important vehicle for the publication of taxonomic studies. However, it is obviously not the single journal devoted to taxonomic science, such as depicted by some of the supporting letters. So, why has the suppression caused that enormous commotion? A quick answer is because in some megadiverse countries, such as Brazil in which most of the fauna remains undescribed, the higher education and scientific organizations evaluation systems have entirely embraced bibliometric indexes . The. TheZoot figures –6, even . 4.4An important distinction should be made between two categories of self-citation, individual (author) and collective  self-citation, although both potentially result in a boost of bibliometric indexes. There are many legitimate reasons for a researcher to cite her/his earlier works; in many cases, self-citations are unavoidable, depending on the circumstances or subject . For exaet al. [Self-citation phenomena, either of author or journal types, have been deeply investigated from various perspectives, including sociological and bibliometric aspects. A review focused on author self-citation and all its technical nuances was presented by Szomszor et al. . Generalet al. . Howeveret al. . Consequet al.  argued tZootaxa hardly meets the aforementioned criteria for reasonable justification of high self-citations. Also, self-citation has increased in the journal over the years . Zootaxa is clearly not highly specialized. A quick examination of its issues will confirm this point and taxonomy as a whole is far from having only a few other available journals, at least to most groups. We compiled 123 journals that publish taxonomic papers, solely in the JCR database  and Acarologia (mites), which together represent a small part of extant diversity, would present similar or even higher self-citation levels, which is not the case , mai, maiZootZootaxa? Several reasons influence the preference of a researcher for a specific journal. Certainly, scope, visibility, prestige in the field and JIF are among the most influential criteria. It is realistic to assume that most of the authors of Zootaxa are looking for a journal that has fast reviewing and production processes, is free of charge to authors (no APC), has a comparatively high JIF, and has no limit of pages for a manuscript. Authors and readers of the journal seem not to be concerned about the hybrid policy with paywall, with few published articles having open access, achieved through payment by authors (APC-OA). Among the reasons for this complaisance are the article-processing charges for most open access journals with values of hundreds of Euros or US Dollars, generally excessively expensive for researchers from developing countries, the possible economic situation of most contributors , and thDiversity and Distributions, from readers' payment to authors’ payment in an APC-OA model [Zootaxa demanding the removal of files from any such platforms, quite unlike the crusade carried out by big publishers against these kinds of storage and access-granting.The holy grail quest for diamond open access  versus paywall policies creates a paradox: how can journals cover the considerable costs involved in publishing, copyediting, DOI generation, data insertion into biodiversity databases, file archiving, etc.? These controversies concerning OA were depicted with vibrant colours during the gradual transition of big publishers' journals, such as OA model . GradualZootaxa was focused initially on long papers on descriptive taxonomy; subsequently, it gradually changed its scope and started accepting short notes and studies on various subjects associated with zoological taxonomy/systematics. Curiously, soon after Clarivate announced the reinstatement of the JIF of Zootaxa [We are aware of the leading role that bibliometric indexes play in the science publishing industry, as well as their considerable influence on how and where science is done nowadays. However, JIF cannot determine the development of a whole scientific field, even when supporting agencies adopt it as a criterion of quality. A high JIF does not necessarily come from a high-quality taxonomic study; it is probably much more connected to the scope and diversity of methods and sources of data that are usually portrayed by high JIF ranked journals. Another aspect to be considered is that  Zootaxa , the jou. 5Zootaxa by Clarivate is irrelevant to biological sciences and taxonomy because Journal Impact Factors are statistically illiterate [Menaces to taxonomy as a science come from distinct sources and the relatively low bibliometric indexes including citation rates of its journals is only one factor that contributes to establishing the so-called taxonomic impediment. The reversion of the suppression of literate  and caushttps://prn.to/31nGDYC, [https://bit.ly/3hm9yC4), we should perhaps concentrate, for instance, on securing professional positions for young talented taxonomists, who are much needed for the proper development and maintenance of museums, scientific collections and publicly accessible digital databases. We are sure that Zootaxa has provided an invaluable service to the field of taxonomy. Suppression from JIF will not change or diminish this remarkable contribution.We hope the community of taxonomists gets engaged with renewed strength in actions directly connected to the development and promotion of our science. Instead of being deeply focused on gaming irreproducible journal metrics sold to our institutions and research funders, controlled by a USA/UK-based company, which itself was acquired in 2016 by two private equity funds (Onex Corporation and Baring Private Equity Asia—ONEX/BPEA; see , https:/31nGDYC, , https:/Zootaxa to the JIF without considering that this journal has this index influenced by the currently high levels of self-citation. Regardless of its real significance, JIF is lamentably considered by many to be one of the attractive qualities of Zootaxa. An honourable choice would be to reject bibliometric indexes altogether, including JIF, instead of considering them when convenient. We are witnessing a moral bankruptcy of the system of scientific publications devoted to the knowledge on biodiversity; it would be much better if the system could be somehow reinvented with ways to support DOA as its main goal.We emphasize that menace to taxonomy comes not much from the suppression of any specific journal from a bibliometric platform belonging to a big company. Much more harm is caused by the limited renewal of professional positions and the loss of collections, such as the huge ones that were housed at the Museu Nacional of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. These are the real issues that should motivate the engagement and action of taxonomists around the world. In short and loud, taxonomy is produced by taxonomists, not by journals. We recognize the deep impact the JIF mania has on the careers of taxonomists, due to governmental policies that embraced bibliometric evaluations in a highly competitive environment, with researchers struggling for limited grants. However, our current challenges cannot be dealt with through endorsement of the status quo. We need to change the focus. Also, it is contradictory to argue in favour of the reinstatement of Zootaxa and, of course, research on those taxa can also be published in more general outlets in Entomology or Zoology categories. Therefore, the high levels of self-citation in Zootaxa are hardly justifiable. It appears to us that these high levels are caused by a sociological bias, being a side effect of the Zootaxa phenomenon. Myths about Zootaxa as the unique journal that publishes taxonomic studies are clearly harmful to the field. In addition, an urgent question must be answered: if Zootaxa decides to ignore JIF altogether, would it remain a good vehicle for the publication of taxonomic papers? If your answer is no, there is certainly a big problem with the community of practitioners in the taxonomic world.Taxonomic groups that still need massive descriptive studies, with many species waiting to be discovered, such as Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera and Arachnida, have many journals devoted specifically to them. The JIF of these journals is similar to that of Click here for additional data file.


Acta Orthopaedica, a nonprofit, Open Access journal, was founded in 1930 and is owned by the Nordic Orthopaedic Federation (NOF). The NOF is the federation of the national orthopedic societies of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden representing over 5,500 orthopedic surgeons. Acta enables the mission of NOF, i.e., dissemination of evidence-based medicine, education and research.Acta each year, and of these around 100 are published after editorial and outside/external peer review. Articles come from all over the world but submissions and publications from the NOF countries are most common. Acta publishes numerous arthroplasty register studies—the first registers —and radiostereometry investigations (developed for orthopedic purposes in Sweden in 1974). Several of these register and radiostereometry studies are highly cited: see the top-10 cited articles below. During recent years Acta has also published an increasing number of randomized clinical trials.Approximately 600 manuscripts are submitted to Acta’s development during the last 20 years and a compilation of the 10 most cited research articles during the last 20 years, each of them accompanied by a Guest editorial written by invited experts.This issue of Acta celebrates our 90-year anniversary with this overview of Acta soon realized that OA had come to stay and in 2005 started, first of orthopedic journals, OA publication without cost for authors and readers. At this time we also made all Acta articles published since start 1930 electronically accessible cost-free. When we introduced OA we changed the journal’s name from Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica to Acta Orthopaedica to emphasize Acta’s international character.The Open Access (OA) movement started in the 1990s and gained momentum in the early 2000s when PubMed Central (PMC) and OA BioMed Central were launched. Acta, which means that they pay no APC. At the same time, we also stopped the print edition and Acta became an electronic-only journal. Accepted articles are, however, still compiled into 6 annual issues  presented as an e-zine and distributed to all collective NOF member subscribers.We foresaw that with OA we would lose subscriptions and in 2018 we introduced an Article Processing Charge (APC), which is common to most other journals that offer OA publication. APC relates to articles emanating from outside NOF. All Nordic orthopedic surgeons are members of NOF and pay a subscription for Acta articles are, since 2005, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Licence. This means that Acta has no copyright on your article; you as an author, and others, are free to use it for all non-commercial purposes.All Acta started online prepublication; soon after acceptance the article is available on PubMed (Epub ahead of print) eliminating the previous delay caused by the wait for the print publication. In the same year Acta also started voluntary non-anonymous reviewing ; the reviewers are named and thanked in the published article. There is an option for reviewers to remain anonymous, which is, however, rarely used: almost all > 200 annual reviewers sign their reports. We have a strong feeling this open system has improved the quality of the reviews, an observation also made by other journals.In 2009 Acta included an experienced biostatistician among its editors, since then scrutinizing statistics in all manuscripts. He has also written many Editorials on the proper use of statistical methods and helped numerous authors to improve their manuscripts, thus implying well-founded conclusions. Several authors have expressed their appreciation for this help.Inappropriate use of statistics in biomedicine  leading to false conclusions has become increasingly apparent and discussed during the 2000s. It has been named as one of the explanations for the so-called replication crisis within science. Already in 1993 Acta is guaranteed irrespective of the study outcome.In 2019 Acta decided to publish Registered Reports, i.e., the methods and proposed analyses of planned studies are published as a journal article after peer-review has confirmed a meaningful study applying appropriate methods. Once the study is completed—and adheres to the initially approved proposal—publication in We also decided to consider for publication manuscripts previously uploaded to a non-commercial preprint server, such as MedRxiv. We do not consider posting on a preprint server to be duplicate publication and this will not jeopardize consideration for publication in Acta after the ordinary review process.Make the review process transparent, i.e., make the complete preprint correspondence between authors, editors, and external reviewers electronically available together with the published article .Encourage publication of studies with (unexpected) null results (to avoid publication bias).Encourage publication of replication studies (cf. current biomedicine with a serious replication problem: the reproducibility crisis). There is a need for more systematic replication studies, regardless of their outcome. This applies also to clinical studies; in some way register studies of joint replacements are already close to replication studies—the same implants are studied in different populations managed at different hospitals.These 10 articles, published since 2000, were ranked  by the fraction” Total number of cites/Years from publication”, to compensate for increasing possibilities of citation with time. The articles were cited around > 400–200 times. The abstract of each article is reproduced and each of them is accompanied by a Guest editorial written by invited experts. Acta thanks them for their excellent work.Top-10 articles, 2000–2020 in descending order of number of citationsLocal infiltration analgesia: a technique for the control of acute postoperative pain following knee and hip surgery. A case study of 325 patients. Dennis R Kerr and Lawrence Kohan. Acta Orthop 2008; 79(2): 174-83.Predictors of length of stay and patient satisfaction after hip and knee replacement surgery: Fast-track experience in 712 patients. Henrik Husted, Gitte Holm, and Steffen Jacobsen. Acta Orthop 2008; 79(2): 168-73.Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register: evaluation of 170,413 operations. Nils P Hailer, Göran Garellick, and Johan Kärrholm. Acta Orthop 2010; 81(1): 34-41.Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases. Peter Herberts and Henrik Malchau. Acta Orthop Scand 2000; 71(2): 111-21.Guidelines for standardization of radiostereometry (RSA) of implants. Edward R Valstar, Richie Gill, Leif Ryd, Gunnar Flivik, Niclas Börlin, and Johan Kärrholm. Acta Orthop 2005; 76(4): 563-72.Why still in hospital after fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty? Henrik Husted, Troels H Lunn, Anders Troelsen, Lissi Gaarn-Larsen, Billy B Kristensen, and Henrik Kehlet. Acta Orthop 2011; 82(6): 679-84.The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Charles M Court-Brown, Ashima Garg and Margaret M McQueen. Acta Orthop Scand 2001; 72(4): 365–71.The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties. Leif I Havelin, Lars B Engesaeter, Birgitte Espehaug, Ove Furnes, Stein A Lie, and Stein E Vollset. Acta Orthop Scand 2000; 71(4): 337-53.Effectiveness of hip or knee replacement surgery in terms of quality-adjusted life years and costs. Pirjo Räsänen, Pekka Paavolainen, Harri Sintonen, Anna-Maija Koivisto, Marja Blom, Olli-Pekka Ryynänen, and Risto P Roine. Acta Orthop 2007; 78(1): 108-15.Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Otto Robertsson, Michael Dunbar, Thorbjörn Pehrsson, Kaj Knutson, and Lars Lidgren. Acta Orthop Scand 2000; 71(3): 262–7.Anders Rydholm on behalf of all editors


Audiology Research was able to maintain its standards for the high quality of its published papers. Thanks to the contribution of our reviewers, in 2021, the median time to first decision was 21 days and the median time to publication was 57.5 days. The editors would like to extend their gratitude and recognition to the following reviewers for their precious time and dedication, regardless of whether the papers they reviewed were finally published:Adam SheppardJosée LagacéAgnieszka J. SzczepekKatarina Trebusak PodkrajsekAgnieszka Janik McErleanKiran K. SriperumbudurAlessandra FiorettiKoji NishimuraAlexander J. BilligLuca BruschiniAli A. DaneshLuca VerrecchiaAllegra CattaniMarcello CherchiAnke TropitzschMarwan El MobadderAugusto CasaniMatias MorinBenjamin BoeckingMelissa TesherChiara VisentinMike MaslinChip HahnMin Young LeeChristian ByaertMing ZhangChristian GiguèreMónica ChamorroChristopher PastrasNicolas Perez-FernandezCristiano BalzanelliPasqua Irena SciancaleporeDaniel B. PolleyPasqualina Maria PicciottiDelia HorhatPeter V. PaulDominika OziębłoRichard C. DowellEkaterina GarbarukRobert J. MorellEleonora M.C. TreccaRoberto TeggiEliane SchochatRuggero LapennaFabrice GiraudetSaba BattelinoFaris F. BrkicSalvatore MartellucciFei ZhaoSamue AtchersonFrancesca AtturoSergio Cuevas-CovarrubiasFrancesco GaziaSeyed Alireza RohaniGeorge TavartkiladzeShunsuke KidaniGerrit PaascheSimona SacchiniGiampiero NeriSung Kwang HongGiuseppe AttanasioTang-Chuan WangHenning SchepkerToshihisa MurofushiHero P. WitVijaya Kumar NarneHiroshi Inui InuiVincenzo De CeglieIan CurthoysVirginia CorazziInna BelyantsevaWieslaw KonopkaJan de LaatWiktor JedrzejczakJerzy TomikXiying GuanJohannes FellingerYael ZaltzJose Antonio Lopez-EscamezRigorous peer-reviews are the basis of high-quality academic publishing. Thanks to the great efforts of our reviewers,


Nothing happens unless something is moved. —Albert EinsteinJBMR® Plus, it is highly appropriate that my final contribution as editor‐in‐chief will be the JBMR Plus Early Career Reseacher special issue dedicated to the future leaders of our society. We chose one of the most inspirational figures in our field, Fuller Albright, to grace its cover. Fuller Albright was magical in his immense contributions to the growing science of endocrinology, which he helped found. His astute clinical observations underpinned elegant investigations that identified renal effects of parathyroid hormone, estrogen use in osteoporosis, and vitamin D–resistant rickets, among many others. It is indeed very fitting that his name also honors an ASBMR award for its most meritorious early career researchers as well as the cover of this JBMR Plus special issue devoted to their work.It is the end of the beginning. Nearly 5 years since the birth of JBMR Plus was my second new online‐only open access journal, the first being Bone Reports, and this prior experience was invaluable. I also had a lot of help! Help from my four highly competent deputy editors, Drs. Teresita Bellido, Bo Abrahamsen, Fanxin Long, and Luigi Gennari; several talented associate editors, Suzanne Jan de Beur, Stavroula Kousteni, Thorsten Schinke, Xiang‐hong Luo, and most recently, Peggy Cawthon and Emma Clarke; and regional editors, Martina Rauner and Xiang‐hong Luo. The quality of the assembled team was such that three became presidents of either ASBMR or the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS) during their JBMR Plus tenure! Help from the newly formed JBMR Plus Editorial Board and our hard‐working reviewers. Help from the ASBMR Council, two publications directors, Katie Duffy and Kim Murphy, and two executive directors, Ann Elderkin and Doug Fesler, who all enthusiastically supported and believed in ASBMR's new journal. Help from Sarah Dallas and her ASBMR Publications Committee, and help from the experienced and dedicated Wiley publication team, Jessica Downey, Jinnie Wong, and Jane Taylor. Finally, and not least, help from ASBMR members who chose JBMR Plus to publish their exciting new work. There would be no JBMR Plus without your hard work—thank you to you all! It was a privilege—exciting, humbling, and revelatory—to learn of your latest research, with 40% deciding to submit directly to JBMR Plus and a high percentage (currently 22%) accepting our offer to transfer their work from the JBMR to JBMR Plus.It is challenging to start a new journal. JBMR Plus was to accelerate the research into bone biology that has underpinned the recent innovative therapeutic advances in bone and mineral research. My senior editorial team allowed us to make JBMR Plus a rapidly responsive and innovative home for new discoveries that will ultimately improve global musculoskeletal health by changing clinical care and health policy. We continually strove to drive down turnaround times. Our JBMR Plus special issues have highlighted areas we thought were evolving at a rapid rate so were worthy of critical and in‐depth examination. These have included this Early Career Researcher special issue; Vitamin D, in honor of the late and great Dr. Tony Norman; Rare Bone Diseases; and Cancer and Bone. I especially thank my guest editors for their hard work on these special issues: Megan Weivoda and Rachelle Johnson, Roger Bouillon, Eileen Shore and Maurizio Pacifici, and David Roodman, respectively.As editor‐in‐chief, one of my aspirations for JBMR Plus from a rapidly expanding field of competing online‐only open access journals. The trend for open access is being fostered by institutional and funder mandates to publish in this format. This newly found desire for equity of access allows ASBMR investigators to publish their work so it is immediately available to all. We hope this increased visibility of research published in JBMR Plus will also drive an increased recognition of our authors' work. Being affiliated with a specialty scientific society such as ASBMR clearly gives JBMR Plus an edge as we move forward to seek recognition by indexing databases. This will be the major challenge in the next 2 years; however, citations are growing at a healthy rate with some articles already being cited >100 times. The future looks bright indeed.An ongoing challenge is to distinguish JBMR Plus baton to Dr. Deborah Veis from the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO, USA. Deb has the precise credentials to take JBMR Plus to the next level, having been a long‐serving associate editor of the JBMR under two editors‐in‐chief, Drs. Juliette Compston and Roberto Civitelli. Her background as a bone and mineral clinician and pathologist ideally places her to bring a renewed focus on translational research to the journal. I believe Deb's father was also a scientific editor, so she appears predestined to achieve her role as editor‐in‐chief at a very important time for JBMR Plus. Although it is the end of the beginning, the next phase of JBMR Plus now commences. With Deb's leadership of her new senior editorial team and your continued support, JBMR Plus can only grow stronger and rapidly climb the ladder of endocrinology journals.In this unanticipated Olympic year, I am now passing the JBMR Plus; I have enjoyed the experience immensely, but now we move forward!In closing, thank you for the privilege of serving as the inaugural editor‐in‐chief of https://publons.com/publon/10.1002/jbm4.10556.The peer review history for this article is available at