Shedding Light on the Editorial Process

When I was appointed as Editor-in-Chief of JACC: Case Reports, I realized the huge responsibility that keeps me well motivated each day. I feel accountable to my editorial board members for their well-being and to make the editorial process thoughtful and enjoyable; to the authors for honoring their work and providing them appropriate feedback; and, finally, to the Editor-in-Chief of JACC, Dr. Valentin Fuster, and the rest of the team within the JACC family of journals, who have provided helpful suggestions and advice from the first day. However, it is also my responsibility to maintain the high standards of quality of the JACC family. Thus, I feel it is my duty to explain in detail the editorial process and provide transparency about how a manuscript is assessed.

1. Initial Quality Check

When an author submits a manuscript on behalf of an author group, the editorial office does an initial quality check. That is why we encourage authors to carefully read the author instructions. Fairness is a priority, so we maintain standards for the word count and the number of the authors to treat all authors equally. If a paper successfully passes through the quality check, then it is “checked in” and moves to the editor-in-chief.

2. Editor-in-Chief Reads the Manuscript

The next person to adjudicate the manuscript is the editor-in-chief, who provides a few comments on the manuscript. If there are important features missing, such as videos for the respective figures that are crucial for peer review, then we may ask the authors to provide them. Again, we encourage authors to read the instructions as we have listed videos as a necessary feature of a clinical case.

3. Associate or Deputy Editor Receives Manuscript to Allocate Reviewers

When the manuscript is about to undergo peer review, the editor-in-chief sends the manuscript to an associate editor who specializes in the topic area. This is a second stage during which an associate editor may feel that the manuscript does not warrant publication or that there were important pitfalls. If that is the case, then the associate editor will provide his/her comments, and the manuscript will be sent to the editorial board agenda. If the manuscript is determined to merit peer review, we then allocate reviewers who are experts in the field. Typically, JACC journals’ associate editors invite 2 reviewers, but it is at the discretion of members of the editorial board to choose more reviewers or not, if they feel that the existing reviews are insufficient. Furthermore, we do not allow comments that lack collegiality to reach the authors—the aim of a review is to be constructive to each other.

4. Editorial Board Meeting

Once a week, the editorial board, including the deputy and associate editors together with the editor-in-chief, holds a meeting to discuss all pending manuscripts that are decision-ready. We often have long agendas, sometimes approximately 50 pages to adjudicate all of the papers we managed within a week. Therefore, the communal discussion allows for transparency on whether papers need further discussion before a decision is made, or whether they are ready to be accepted, revised, or rejected. Most importantly, we take the time to discuss the manuscripts one by one through a democratic process. One person cannot decide on their own, but altogether we gather a consensus on whether each manuscript is worthy of publication.

We welcome inquiries regarding manuscript decisions from authors. However, it is important to note that the appropriate forum for this discussion is in an e-mail to the editorial office (jacccr@acc.org), whereby staff will coordinate communications regarding decisions, publication timing of accepted papers, and so on. We request that authors avoid contacting members of the editorial board via social media or text message, as it is not the appropriate forum for this discussion. We also encourage feedback on content from readers, but prefer to consider that discourse in the form of a letter to an editor, which allows for the peer review process and the invitation of an author response. In the world of publishing, where we strive for fairness and transparency, texting an editor-in-chief directly on social media is not a professional approach. It is not fair for the readers, the authors, or the editors—some of whom may not have social media—and to remove the quality controls that are upheld during the editorial process to promote fairness. I hope by explaining the editorial process that our authors and readers will understand our reasonings. The meeting every week is a democratic approach to reaching an agreement on what is of value for the scientific community and, of course, meets the Journal’s objectives.

5. Final Decision: Regardless of the Result, Do Not Get Discouraged

In the final stage, the manuscript’s decision letter will be drafted and sent to the author. Importantly, if the decision is to reject the manuscript, the authors should not be discouraged, but should view the decision as an opportunity to submit to another journal. As an example, for the most important publication of my life, it took approximately 10 e-mails back and forth with the journal to make it acceptable for publication. If the decision is to revise, then try to handle the revision as thoroughly and quickly as possible, as it has been shown that the earlier you submit the revision, the better for you and your manuscript. If you have any questions, make sure you ask for help from the editorial office rather than submitting a revision that is inappropriately revised.

6. What Happens if an Author Is a Member of the JACC: Case Reports EDITORIAL Board or Has an Institutional Conflict?

An important part of the editorial process is what happens if a member of the editorial board or authors from my institution submit a manuscript. The answer is simple: I never see the manuscript, nor does it go to a JACC: Case Reports associate or deputy editor. The manuscript will be allocated to a guest editor-in-chief who will designate guest associate editors and reviewers. All decision-making is made by the guest editors. If a manuscript is submitted from one of the deputy/associate editors’ institutions, the associate/deputy editor recuses himself/herself from the discussion of the paper during the editorial board meeting, to ensure that he/she does not influence the discussion. Commonly, the person hangs up and rejoins when we finish the discussion about the specific manuscript. This is one more step toward seeking fairness inside the editorial process.

As I mentioned earlier, we seek to ensure that everyone within the editorial process feels valued: our Associate/Deputy Editors, editorial consultants, guest editors, reviewers, and of course, the authors. On every manuscript, we aim to provide constructive feedback, but our priority is the maintenance of fairness, objectivity, and the elimination of scientific misconduct. Thus, although we had the opportunity to bombard our readers with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) manuscripts, we decided to act sensibly and to publish only the most interesting and educational cases from around the globe—as the first case reports journal to have a call for COVID-19 cases and also to help the authors publish their findings, by waiving any publication fees and expediting the peer review process. We will always aim to maintain the high quality of JACC journals to demonstrate a well-proven cause-causation relationship. In publishing, it is easier to mass produce manuscripts rather than spending time selecting the best of the best. Although it was hard work to be selective in light of the higher number of submissions, we published the special issue on COVID-19 cases in July 2020 with only the highest-quality submissions.

Final Tips for Authors

• •Make sure you read the author instructions carefully.
• •If you have any questions, always contact the editorial office (jacccr@acc.org).
• •Watch the video of our webinar on “How To Write A Case Report” (1) before you submit. This is an important first step prior to the submission.
• •Do not be discouraged if the decision of the journal is not the desired outcome. Collect feedback and plan your next move.
• •Remember: Every effort, every experience—either positive or negative—is an opportunity for you to grow as cardiovascular clinicians and researchers.

We are grateful for your trust and support. This has been a great year, and we promise to do our best to encourage the authors and make the editorial process a positive publishing experience.