2010—For now nothing but good news. Despite major economic struggles worldwide, the journal, Neurocritical Care, is doing well. Last year we saw over 30% increase in submissions, increase in published pages, increase in the impact factor (1.7), and increase in revenues from advertising, print subscriptions, and other sources. It seems we are crossing the rubicon.
Why are things going our way? For one thing, the journal handles manuscripts in a rapid pace. We believe it is our duty to publish timely, interesting, and predominantly practical articles within a short time span. Our reviewers understand that and most of our papers are reviewed within 3 weeks of submission. Only 10% of our reviewers are procrastinators and few answer a request to review with, “I have no time,” “working on a grant application,” or worse, “sorry, I am on service” (well, yes). Some reviewers are incurable, never deliver and their fate is easy to predict.
How long should reviewers have before turning in their reviews in this day of age? A shorter time for review may increase the rejection rate. More time for review has no impact on quality and we have seen that most reviewers either turn in their reviews within days or close to the deadline. We send reminders but few tardy reviewers are jump started by it and the response rate remains low. Some say they will review but do not seem to follow their commitment.
As befits a scholar, reviewing for the journal is an important duty, demonstrates academic interest and productivity, and improves work of colleagues. It truly is a professional consultation and guides the editor in decision making. I am very pleased with my reviewer’s pool and they deserve substantial credit for the success of this journal. I invite readers and authors to volunteer. When our submissions increase we need more qualified reviewers of all stripes.
The editor-in-chief has duties too and commonly involves ethical considerations. The journal has had their share of duplicate and redundant article submission that—we believe—were identified before publication. Any young journal is at risk for such misconduct and, if identified, will lead to a reprimand.
Equally serious is ghost authorship. Collaborative relationship with the industry can greatly benefit budding neurointensivists and result in innovation. However, concealing a conflict of interest by the industry by hiring of a ghostwriter cannot be tolerated. We are not interested in publishing industry generated reviews that may lead to mass distribution of reprints. It would increase our revenues but negatively impact on our growing credibility. We are not in it for the money.
There are many kinds of conflicts of interest. To name a few, these are financial ties, academic commitments, personal relationships, political or religious beliefs, institutional affiliations. Every author should be aware of these conflicts, declare them or refrain from authorship. For more recent information on conflict of interest, I refer to the World Association of Medical Editors website (www.wame.org) recent statement.
Another duty of the editor-in-chief is to keep the journal interesting. My motto has been to publish what interests you and what makes you rethink your practice. We are also interested in how patients are cared for. We are continuing our series with “tell me something I need to know” written by editorial board members and highlighting one aspect of their practice. In 2010 we are starting a NICU fellow section called “A day in the life of a jobbing NICU fellow.” This paper is very much 1 day of work in the NICU and highlights decisions, phone calls, family conferences, and more. It is how a busy and memorable day looks like and may even be one patient that kept you up all night.
At the beginning of the year this is also the time to again thank the editorial board for their continuous support. We are welcoming Neeraj Badjatia who is replacing Stephan Mayer who now is president of the Neurocritical Care Society. I am grateful for the dedicated ad hoc reviewers—asterisk for more than 5 manuscript reviews this year—and they are listed here. It is hoped this year and the next will bring new ideas, new technology, and new approaches in management in the form of interesting practical papers.
Abate, M. Giulia
Adeoye, Opeolu
Aisiku, Imoigele P.
Aiyagari, Venkatesh
Akins, Paul Taylor*
Andrade, Fabio Moreira
Badjatia, Neeraj
Bardutzky, Juergen
Barkan, Helen
Bartynski, Walter
Baskaya, Mustafa K.
Baumann, Antoine
Beer, Ronny
Bell, Randy
Bell, Michael J.
Berlot, Giorgio
Bernstein, Richard
Bledsoe, Kathleen A.
Bloomfield, Eric
Bojanowski, Michel W.
Borel, Cecil
Brambrink, Ansgar
Burns, Lorrie L.
Carandang, Raphael
Carpenter, Jessica Lynn
Carrera, Emmanuel
Castellani, Gianluca
Chen, Wei His
Childs, Charmaine
Cloft, Harry
Coles, Jonathan Peter
Corry, Jesse James
Czosnyka, Marek
Danielisova, Viera
De Oliveira, Jean
Gonҫalves
Degos, Vincent
Demaerschalk, Bart
Dhar, Rajat*
Diaz, Victor Adolfo
Dohmen, Christian
Dreier, Jens P.
Durga, Padmaja
Erdem, Tulin
Farooq, Muhammad*
Flaherty, Matthew
Flint, Alexander
Fragata, Isabel
Frontera, Jennifer*
Fugate, Jennifer E.
Furtado, Sunil V.
Gaul, Charly
Gdynia, Hans-Jürgen
Gorson, Kenneth
Greer, David Matthew
Halperin, John
Hashimoto, Tomoki
Henkes, Hans
Herman, Peter
Hirsch, Lawrence
Hoekema, Dale
Hoesch, Robert E.
Huff, J. Stephen
Hui, Ferdinand
Huttner, H. B.
Ionita, Catalina Codruta
James, Michael Lucas*
Janjua, Tariq*
Jarquin-Valdivia, Adrian A.
Jorens, Philippe G.
Josephson, S. Andrew
Kapapa, Thomas
Kastrup, Oliver
Katsaridis, Vasilios
Kent, Samuel John
Keyrouz, Salah G.
Khatri, Pooja
Kim, May Anne
Klein, Matthias*
Koenig, Matthew*
Koffke, Andrew
Kollmar, Rainer
Kompanje, Erwin
Kramer, Andreas
Kruyt, Nyika
Kuluz, John
Lackner, Peter*
Lansberg, Maarten G.
Larsen, Fin Stolze
Laskowitz, Daniel
Lazaridis, Christos
Lee, Jong Woo
Legriel, Stephane
Lescot, Thomas
Liebeskind, David
Ling, Geoffrey
Liu-DeRyke, Xi
Llompart-Pou, Juan Antonio
Lopez, George
Macdonald, R. Loch
Malek, Adel M.
Manno, Edward
Maramattom, Boby Varkey
Marino, Silvia
Marklund, Niklas
McKinney, Alexander Marcellus
Mertes, Paul Michel
Meyer, Phillippe Gabriel
Muehlschlegel, Susanne
Murphy, Theresa
Mutoh, Tatsushi
Nagayama, Masao*
Naidech, Andrew M.*
Nakagawa, Kazuma
Nanchal, Rahul
Naravetla, Bharath R.
Nathan, Barnett
Naval, Neeraj Sunderrajan
Neyens, Ron
Nguyen, Thanh
Nogueira, Raul Gomes
Nuwer, Marc R.
Nyquist, Paul Alan
Oddo, Mauro
Orakcioglu, Berk
Paterakis, Konstantinos N.
Petzold, Axel*
Pfister, Hans-Walter
Piastra, Marco
Provencio, J. Javier
Puccio, Ava M.
Puppo, Corina
Pyne-Geithman, Gail Jean
Rabinstein, Alejandro
Rincon, Fred
Romero, Carlos Miguel
Rosand, Jonathan
Rosenfeld, Jeffrey Victor
Rossetti, Andrea O.
Rughani, Anand
Samain, Emmanuel
Samuels, Owen
Sarwal, Aarti
Schirmer, Clemens M.*
Schleicher, Donald Thomas
Schulz-Stübner, Sebastian
Schwab, Stefan
Schwarz, Stefan*
Scott, L. Keith
Shah, Qaisar A.
Shahlaie, Kiarash
Shutter, Lori
Sims, John Randall
Singh, Vineeta
Smith, Martin
Souter, Michael
St. Louis, Erik
Stead, Latha G.
Stollberger, Claudia
Suarez, Jose I.
Taccone, Fabio Silvio
Tawil, Isaac
Terry, John
Thomas, Sanjeev V.
Timmons, Shelly
Tisherman, Samuel
Torbey, Michel
van de Beek, Diederik
van den Bergh, Walter M.
Varelas, Panayiotis*
Veltkamp, Roland
Vidotto, Milena Carlos
Webb, Adam
Weiss, Nicolas
Weston-Schumacher, H. Christian
Yahia, Abutaher M.
Yenari, Midori Anne
Zazulia, Allyson R.
Ziai, Wendy
Zubkov, Alexander Y.
Zygun, David
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wijdicks, E.F.M. The Duties and Ethics of the Journal. Neurocrit Care 12, 1–3 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-009-9322-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-009-9322-9