Short abstract
In tribute to the origins of the Journal and to those who made, and continue to make, it possible, this editorial looks back at the past 25 years since the first issue of The Oncologist was published.
When this editor was in mid‐career, busy with responsibilities at the National Cancer Institute, I was approached by my friend and scientific colleague, Martin Murphy, to consider starting a new clinical journal. Marty and his wife Ann were the founding editor and the publisher, respectively, of a successful specialty journal, Stem Cells, and knew how to launch an academic research publication. Marty felt that there existed a gap between the highly scientific and front‐page material of some journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet, and the practicing oncologist, who might not have time to read the growing, and now voluminous, literature in the cancer field. The oncologist in practice might appreciate timely reviews and broader insights into the growing marriage of molecular science, clinical trials, and clinical practice. Would I be interested in creating a journal for the international audience of practitioners who might not have the time to peruse and comprehend the literature, but rather needed a source that presented up‐to‐date knowledge and results in an easily digestible format? I liked the idea of editing a journal. I always enjoyed writing, a career that began for me as a sports editor of the Yale Daily News and summer jobs as the stand‐in editor of the Shelbyville Daily Union. Marty and Ann had found a soft spot in my psyche. We made plans. Our new journal, The Oncologist, had two unusual features: it would not be the organ of a particular cancer association and would not charge for subscriptions; supported by advertising, it would attempt to establish a wide print distribution to an international audience. We gathered a senior editorial board (Eli Glatstein, Greg Curt, Bob Pinedo, and John Niederhuber, and soon to include Frank Balis and Gabe Hortobágyi) and began publishing our first edition of The Oncologist in 1996.
Despite financial challenges, the journal grew steadily and gained an audience of 20,000 readers; thanks to Frank Balis and Greg Curt, it established one of the most active Journal CME sites in the publishing world and gained a super editorial board that also felt the passion and appreciated the product. Many innovations came forward. We published the first series of Schwartz Center Rounds, devoted to the challenging emotional and ethical problems faced by oncologists and their patients. Our editors attracted significant papers on palliative care, pain and opioid management, and financial distress as important aspects of the cancer treatment experience. We began a series of articles representing the collaboration of industry scientists and academic investigators (Academia‐Pharma Intersect), which takes head‐on the challenge of potential conflict of interest in industry reports. We were the first to publish the Molecular Tumor Board series, edited by Aditya Bardia, which presents and interprets the genomic analysis of instructive clinical cancer cases. We began a series on the remarkable, and at times devastating, autoimmune toxicities of checkpoint therapy, edited by Susan Bates.
Most notably, the journal has addressed the need for a simple and straightforward online format for publishing early clinical trials through the laudable efforts of our current senior editors, Susan Bates and Tito Fojo. Their editorship of Clinical Trials Results over the past 7 years has led to more than 170 phase I and II trials seeing the light of day. These innovations have prompted other journals to explore the same territory, following our lead. And we have not shied away from controversy, as the editorial page and commentaries have called attention to ethical issues such as plagiarism and scientific misconduct. We have consistently applauded the current, remarkable FDA Oncology Center of Excellence for continuously improving the speed and quality of new drug approvals and have featured their summaries of approval decisions.
The medical publishing business has evolved over these 25 years. The plethora of new journals, many attracting outstanding articles, has made the competition for important manuscripts intense. The publishing industry is now, more than ever, driven by the need for profit, rather than delivering the message. Manuscript fees have become a lucrative source of revenue and, unfortunately, a reason to publish everything. To say the oncology literature is “cluttered” would be an understatement, but we have striven to maintain our standards despite these trends. The conversion within the publishing industry from print to online material has enhanced readership but, in this editor's opinion, diverted attention from the quality of writing and editorial content. Like other journals, we have published increasingly online, simply responding to the high cost of print publication and the expanding universe of good manuscripts submitted to our journal. We have been indeed fortunate to have been witnesses and participants in the remarkable expansion of oncological practice over these 25 years, as molecular oncology and immunotherapy have changed cancer care.
Our hope is that The Oncologist has been a worthwhile effort, something that only our readers can judge. From the constant stream of interesting papers submitted, that is likely the case. But if this journal has been a worthy addition to the world of medical publication, the tribute should go not to me or Marty, but to our exceptional editorial board, to our wonderfully patient and passionate publishing staff, led and inspired these 25 years by Ann Murphy, and to our senior editors, Oliver Sartor, Tito Fojo, and Susan Bates. Thank you, all. It would never have happened without you.
Disclosures
Bruce A. Chabner: PharmaMar, EMD Serono, Cyteir (C/A, H), Biomarin, Seattle Genetics, PharmaMar, Loxo, Blueprint, Immunomedics, Constellation (OI), Eli Lilly & Co., Genentech (ET).
(C/A) Consulting/advisory relationship; (RF) Research funding; (E) Employment; (ET) Expert testimony; (H) Honoraria received; (OI) Ownership interests; (IP) Intellectual property rights/inventor/patent holder; (SAB) Scientific advisory board
Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.