โ Scribed by Barry L. Zaret
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
Editing a journal is an exhilarating yet demanding endeavor. To play a role in the dissemination of key data and key concepts for our field is both gratifying and humbling. However, like most aspects of life, in the course of journal editing there are occasionally issues that are both confounding and, at times, overtly irritating. Every editor has had to deal, either by written or oral communication, with irate authors who feel their work has been treated with less than its appropriate due. Certainly all of us at times have had papers rejected by journals, often, in our minds, without proper justification. Nevertheless, the peer review system currently remains the best method of evaluation. Our editorial office will always seek an additional opinion if the initial two reviews are not concordant. If the editorial office perceives a reviewer as being somewhat biased, we will not hesitate to seek additional opinions. The goal of the Journal remains to provide the fairest possible review process in the shortest period of time.
Authors too assume major responsibility associated with the submission of a manuscript to the Journal. First, each author should make substantive contributions to the manuscript. It is generally agreed that to be considered an author an individual should fulfill two or, preferably, three of the following requirements: 1) idea conception and experimental design; 2) performance of the study; 3) data analysis; and 4) actual manuscript preparation.
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES
Recently, Haustermans et al. ( 2) investigated the problem o f reproducibility of potential doubling time measurements of human tumors in two different laboratories (Amsterdam and Leuven, The Netherlands). The authors found that the variations induced by the three parts of the procedure (preparation