With the help of staff and fellow editors, I have been working with the GCR for some time now, and I think it's time for a review of the goals of this journal and the progress made toward attaining those goals. Why not start with some positive matters? One of the roles of any society's journal is to maintain the visibility of the organization to its members and to provide continuous education between annual or biannual meetings, without the associated costs and travel. This certainly has been true of other journals I have edited, and is also true of GCR. Simply receiving the journal is a reminder of the work of the society, and I think the content is improving. However, I would like to see the pace of this improvement ratcheted up substantially—one can never have an overabundance of high-quality material.
What strengths have been reflective of ISGIO's goals? A large number of manuscripts submitted come from outside the United States. In part, I think this represents the worldwide goals of ISGIO. In addition, I think that GCR represents a realistic publication for many investigators from countries in which oncology research is in early development. A very important strength is the number of submissions from junior investigators, typically in the form of case reports, with brief reviews of the literature. I have been working with these submissions to help edit, and sometimes rewrite them, recognizing that many of these junior colleagues may not have access to senior mentors. This effort is highly consistent with the format of ISGIO's annual meeting, at which junior investigators have presented original research, developed case discussions, and participated in panel discussions.
Where has GCR fallen a bit short? Since the core material of most citable journals consists of original research, we are clearly in need of more submissions of such manuscripts. It is somewhat unrealistic to expect GCR to emerge as a first- or second-tier journal for original research. I would love to see that happen, of course, but that was never envisioned as GCR's editorial role or destiny. Instead, many thought-provoking secondary analyses of trials are being produced that would be excellent candidates for rapid review and publication in GCR. I welcome, and would sincerely appreciate, commentary and input from my colleagues and readers regarding this strategy. And certainly, other types of submissions would fit quite well in GCR.
Well-done case reports are always welcome, and I will continue to work with authors to make their reports as accurate, credible, and interesting as possible. As always, the phrases “Is it new? Is it true? Will it change practice?” apply to case reports as much as original reports. In the “GI CANCER EDUCATIONAL CASE SERIES” section of this issue, we publish a report from Memorial-Sloan Kettering Cancer Center describing the discussion at an international tumor board. Similar submissions would be very desirable, as they are reflective of the nature of ISGIO and are always highly valued by the readership. The journal also published three commentaries—one from a major cancer center, one from a large CCOP, and one from a community practice setting—discussing the consequences of the frequent lack of oncologic drugs in their practice settings. And certainly numerous other timely commentaries merit consideration.
The responsibilities of Editorial Board members include not only manuscript review, but also proactive participation in shaping editorial policy by suggesting journal content and supplying manuscripts. I encourage all ISGIO members and readers to offer suggestions about the proposals mentioned above, as well as their own thoughts about material they would like to see in the pages of GCR. Letters to this Editor-in-Chief are always welcome.