The first year of Neuro-Oncology under a new editorial team has been a fruitful one. We are grateful for the support of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) and the Japanese Society for Neuro-Oncology (JSNO), as well as the neuro-oncology community for the continued success of the journal.
I am especially grateful for the dedication and hard work of our Executive Editors, Kenneth Aldape (SNO representative), Riccardo Soffietti (EANO representative) and Ryo Nishikawa (JSNO representative), our Associate Editors Terri Armstrong, Karla Ballman, Antonio Chiocca, Frank Furnari, Monika Hegi, Mark Kieran, Minesh Mehta, Whiney Pope, Hideyuki Saya, David Schiff, and Wolfgang Wick, our Editorial Board, and all of the ad hoc reviewers who are listed in the subsequent pages. I would especially like to thank our Managing Editor, Elizabeth Martinson, for steering Neuro-Oncology through its first year under a new set of editors and for seamlessly implementing an extensive set of changes.
The changes we instituted over the past year included “Highlights from the Literature” edited by Kenneth Aldape, regular editorials from leaders in the field, reviews of important topics, advances-in-brief, and point-counterpoint articles highlighting areas of controversy. In addition, we have implemented word limitations and an increased number of supplements. These have all been well received. Overall, our submissions have increased to approximately 750 over the past 12 months, and there has been a substantial 30% increase in the number of downloaded articles over the same period.
The impact factor fell slightly this year. There are inevitable fluctuations in this measure and we expect this to improve in the future as a result of the changes we have implemented. Neuro-Oncology remains the leading journal in the field. We are committed to publishing the highest quality papers that will have a meaningful impact in our field. Towards this end, we are gradually reducing the percentage of papers that are accepted from the current 30% to 15–20%. Clinical trials that are not adequately designed and powered and do not have extensive correlative studies that allow us to learn from the trial, even if it is negative, will be unlikely to be published. Similarly, preclinical studies that are not original and do not use multiple cell lines, human-derived neurospheres and xenografts, or have in vivo and mechanistic studies are also unlikely to be published. In general, concise, clearly written papers will have a better chance of acceptance. Robert Daroff, the former editor of Neurology, wrote a guide for authors that I have personally found very helpful.1 In it he refers to Billings’ rules: "(1) Have something to say; (2) Say it; (3) Stop as soon as you have said it. Otherwise, the scientific value of your manuscript may be obscured.”2
It is important to adhere to the highest ethical standards of authorship and publishing. Full and complete disclosures are critical to avoid potential conflicts of interest. We have also started to routinely run every manuscript we receive through a software program to ensure that there is no significant overlap in wording with previously published papers.
Neuro-Oncology is the official journal not only of SNO, but also of EANO and JSNO. We are strongly committed to publishing important neuro-oncology studies from all over the world and hope to increase the contribution from authors outside North America in the coming years. However, we understand that there may be difficulties with language for non-native English speakers. Towards this end Oxford University Press recently instituted an English language editing service that we hope will be of help to some authors (www.oxfordlanguageediting.com).
Timely reviews are critical and we are working hard to reduce the length of the review process. Over the past year the average time for peer review has decreased from 42 days to 33 days. We will work towards completing reviews in 21 days over the next year. In order to allow papers that have been accepted to go online sooner we plan to publish the author's draft approximately 3 business days from acceptance and then replace it with the fully corrected proof when that becomes available.
High-quality reviews are not only critical for selecting the best articles for publication in Neuro-Oncology but are also useful in helping authors improve their manuscripts, even if they are not published in this journal. Our current policy is to aim for three independent referees for each manuscript reviewed. We have also implemented an internal rating system for reviewer comments that will eventually help us to select the best reviewers for the journal and will hopefully provide more incisive and helpful reviews for authors.
As always we welcome feedback and suggestions to improve the journal (pwen@partners.org or neuonc.editorialoffice@oup.com). Our goal is for Neuro-Oncology to publish the most important papers in the field that will help increase our understanding of nervous system tumors and neurologic complications of cancer and ultimately improve the outcomes and quality of life for our patients.
References
- 1.Daroff Robert B., MD, Rossi Anne, Stevens-Ross Lise M., Rowland Lewis P., MD Neurology. 1996;46:298–300. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Billings JS. An address on our medical literature. BMJ. 1881;13:262–268. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.1076.262. Aug. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]