Abstract
With the arrival of 2015, I am embarking on my final year as Editor-in-Chief of JHC. It has been a fascinating and enjoyable experience and, in the course of the year, I shall hand over to a new incumbent with the hope that JHC will continue to prosper and evolve with the times. Over the past four years, the volume of research publications has increased and there are now many more journals in our branch of science. Most of the newcomers are open access and some appear to put income ahead of quality. Like many of you perhaps, I have been invited onto editorial boards of journals where I have no useful expertise—not an encouraging sign.
I have been reflecting on these past four years at the helm of JHC and I am struck by one outcome. JHC is not a follower of scientific fashion. Unlike the “top” journals in the biological sciences, manuscripts are not rejected because they cover areas considered by the editors to be passé, irrespective of quality. I read every submission and every cover letter and our acceptance rate has remained steady at around 40%. This means that 60% submissions are declined and all authors know that it is never pleasant to receive “that” letter. In some cases, the content is outside the scope of the journal, and so we can suggest that the authors redirect their work elsewhere. In many other cases, however, there are sufficient problems with the content that the manuscript is declined. That decision is ultimately mine, and is part and parcel of the job. Sometimes it is difficult and sometimes it is more clear-cut. Over the years, though, I would expect a fair number of rebuttals from authors who are aggrieved at the outcome and quality of the reviews. Maybe most of us have received reviews that are not good for our blood pressure; I can certainly bring to mind a few from my own laboratory. However, at JHC, it simply has not happened, with a very few exceptions.
The reason why JHC receives few rebuttals, I believe, is down to the quality of the review process. Our Editorial Board contains a mix of very experienced senior members, many of whom were associated with the journal before my tenure and newer appointments that I have made. Along the way, some members have retired from the Board, and sadly a few are no longer with us. New blood in the shape of younger board members is essential for the health of the journal and we now have a wide geographical and subject spread. By its very nature, JHC cuts across many disciplines and so we need quite a large Editorial Board. Clearly, however, our board members are enlisting the help of high quality reviewers so that, combined with their own judgment, the peer review process is sound. Moreover, it is rapid, with an average of 21 days from submission to first decision. Therefore, I owe a large debt of gratitude to our Editorial Board who volunteer their time to support JHC. Aside from the necessary quality in submissions, a journal can probably only be as good as the people who review for it. Since I read all reviews of JHC manuscripts, I can see that one constant of JHC, along with its 60-year pedigree of publishing high-quality science, is the solid expertise of our reviewers and Editorial Board members. Peer review is constantly under the microscope these days but, for JHC, it seems we retain the right balance of fairness and objectivity. I always tell my own fellows as they start to review manuscripts that they should aim to “review as you would like to be reviewed”.
I have been associated with JHC and The Histochemical Society for over 15 years, and one “constant” has been Tanda Jaipean. She is our Managing Editor and a large number of reviewers and authors will have communicated with her, and many will have encountered Tanda at our meetings. Her roles are many in the process of working with authors, editors, reviewers and our publisher in overseeing the production of JHC. Tanda keeps me on my toes and never lets a deadline slip and her commitment to JHC and its quality has been second to none. However, soon she will be moving on to a new venture. I would like to acknowledge the tremendous work that Tanda has done for JHC, not least when we moved from self-publishing to being a SAGE journal. Working closely with Tanda, I can appreciate what goes on behind the scenes to get JHC published. We wish her all the best in her new career.
Finally, I would like to wish all our readers, reviewers, editors and staff and happy, healthy and successful 2015.