Clinical Research in Cardiology

, Volume 97, Issue 6, pp 349–355 | Cite as

European National Society Cardiovascular Journals

Background, rationale and mission statement of the “Editors’ Club” (Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology)
  • Fernando AlfonsoEmail author
  • Giuseppe Ambrosio
  • Fausto J. Pinto
  • Ernst E. Van der Wall

Cardiovascular scientific production in Europe is growing both in quantity and quality. Promoting high-quality research is a major goal of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) [13, 19, 20]. The ESC has two highly respected official general journals, namely the European Heart Journal and Cardiovascular Research, devoted to clinical and basic research respectively [13, 19, 20]. The ESC also publishes several sub-speciality official journals covering the full spectrum of cardiovascular diseases and related techniques. Most European countries, however, also have their own cardiovascular journals. National Society Cardiovascular Journals (NSCJ) are time-honoured and classically disseminate high-quality scientific research mainly originating from each particular European country. They also play a major role in education and harmonisation of clinical practice. Most NSCJ are published in local languages but many of them also incorporate English editions. Altogether, NSCJ provide a highly...


Impact Factor National Society European Heart Journal Electronic Edition Medical Journal Editor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The continuous help of Anne Mascarelli (ESC) deserves special recognition.


  1. 1.
    Alfonso F, Bermejo J, Segovia J (2005) Impactology, impactitis, impactotherapy. Rev Esp Cardiol 58:1239–1245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alfonso F, Bermejo J, Segovia J (2004) European Guidelines at Revista Española de Cardiología: towards a full “globalization” of cardiovascular care? Rev Esp Cardiol 57:1000–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alfonso F, Bermejo J, Segovia J (2004) New recommendations of the international committee of medical journal editors. Shifting focus: from uniformity in technical requirements to bioethical considerations. Rev Esp Cardiol 57:592–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alfonso F, Bermejo J, Segovia J (2005) Duplicate or redundant publication: can we afford it?. Rev Esp Cardiol 58:601–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alfonso F, Segovia J, Heras M, Bermejo J (2006) Publication of clinical trials in scientific journals: editorial issues. Rev Esp Cardiol 59:1206–1214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R et al. (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statment from the international committee of medical journal editors. N Engl J Med 351:1250–1251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bassand JP, Ryden L (1999) Guidelines: making the headlines or confined to the slide lines? Eur Heart J 20:1149–1151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bermejo J, Segovia J, Alfonso F (2006) Summary of the clinical studies reported in the scientific session of the American Heart Association 2005 (Dallas, TX, USA, 13–16 November 2005). Rev Esp Cardiol 59:143–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brady AJ, Poole-Wilson PA (2006) ESC-CHF: guidelines for the aspirational and the practical. Heart 92:437–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Society of Cardiology (ESC). (
  11. 11.
    Fox KA (2006) Registries and surveys in acute coronary syndrome. Eur Heart J 27:2260–2262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    García-Dorado D, Schlüter KD, Martinson EA, Piper HM (2005) Which papers are more interesting to the readers of cardiovascular research? Information from download monitoring. Cardiovasc Res 65:1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goodman N, Bijnens B, Van de Werf F (2004) The European heart journal: a European journal with a global impact in cardiovascular medicine. Eur Heart J 25:1382–1384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goyal A, Tricoci P, Melloni C et al. (2006) Highlights from the American Heart Association scientific sessions, November 13 to 16, 2005; Dallas, TX. Am Heart J 151:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hildner FJ (1997) Redundant publication. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 42:111–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hildner FJ (2003) Ethical issues in cardiovascular publications: observations during 25 years as an editor. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv 60:202–207Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Maria A (2003) Duplicate publication: insights into the essence of a medical journal. J Am Coll Cardiol 41:516–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    No authors listed (2006) Scandinavian cardiovascular journal. Circulation 114:f156Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Piper HM, Garcia-Dorado D, Martinson EA (2007) Readers’ choice: hot papers downloaded in 2006. Cardiovasc Res 73:619–622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Piper HM, Martinson EA, Opthof T (2005) The hills and valleys of an impact factor. Cardiovasc Res 67:175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Priori SG, Aliot E, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, Bossaert L, Breithardt G, Brugada P, Camm JA, Cappato R, Cobbe SM, Di Mario C, Maron BJ, McKenna WJ, Pedersen AK, Ravens U, Schwartz PJ, Trusz-Gluza M, Vardas P, Wellens HJ, Zipes DP (2002) European society of cardiology. [Task force on sudden cardiac death, European society of cardiology. Summary of recommendations]. Ital Heart J Suppl 3(10):1051–1065PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Relman AS (1977) Publish or perish -or both. N Engl J Med 297:724–725PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Relman AS (1981) The ingelfinger rule. N Engl J Med 305:824–826PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ribeiro C, Ferreira R (1992) Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia. Quality and prestige for the use of cardiovascular medicine. Rev Port Cardiol 11:11–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scott-Lichter D, the Editorial Policy Committee (2006) Council of scientific editors. CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. CSE, Reston (http://www.
  26. 26.
    Seglen PO (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used to evaluate research. BMJ 314:497–502Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Seidl K, Schuchert A, Tebbenjohanns J, Hartung W (2005) Commentary on the guidelines the diagnosis and the therapy of syncope–the European society of cardiology 2001 and the update 2004 Z Kardiol 94(9):592–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Silber S, Albertsson P, Aviles FF, Camici PG, Colombo A, Hamm C, Jorgensen E, Marco J, Nordrehaug JE, Ruzyllo W, Urban P, Stone GW, Wijns W (2005) European society of cardiology. Percutaneous coronary interventions. Guidelines of the European society of cardiology-ESC. Kardiol Pol 63:265–320 discussion 321–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Simoons ML, van der Putten N, Wood D, Boersma E, Bassand JP (2002) The cardiology information system: the need for data standards for integration of systems for patient care, registries and guidelines for clinical practice. Eur Heart J 23:1148–1152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith R (1998) Unscientific practice flourishes in science. Impact factors of journals should not be used to evaluate research BMJ 316:1036–40Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals (1997) International committee of medical journal editors. N Engl J Med 23:336:309–315 ( Scholar
  32. 32.
    World Association of Medical Editors' (WAME) (
  33. 33.
    Moher D, Schulz K, Altman DG, for the CONSORT group (2001) The revised CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. Lancet 357:1191–1194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernando Alfonso
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giuseppe Ambrosio
    • 1
  • Fausto J. Pinto
    • 1
  • Ernst E. Van der Wall
    • 1
  1. 1.Revista Española de CardiologíaSociedad Española de CardiologíaMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations