Passing the baton at high speed: time to hand over to a new editorial board.

Editorial Following a 70-year-old tradition, The Journal of Clinical Investigation (JCI) will change hands again during March through April of this year, moving its editorial offices from La Jolla, California to Ann Arbor, Michigan. This tradition of editorial transitions ensures that JCI can reinvent itself every five years, and thereby adjust to the changing times. The selection of Stephen J. Weiss of the University of Michigan as the new Editor was the result of a nationwide search, in which detailed applications were submitted by many prospective candidates, who were nominated by their respective universities. The next issue of The Journal will carry an Editorial by Dr. Weiss, in which he will outline his plans for the next five years. We will focus here upon the modifications that the La Jolla group has made in the JCI during the last five years. The primary goal of the JCI is to publish original, high-quality work regarding human and mammalian biology, physiology , and medicine (the terms " biology " and " physiology " being interpreted in the broadest possible sense, to be inclusive of all types of research on humans). The Journal has remained in the top echelons of biomedical publications at least partly because of a tradition of thorough and critical reviews of submitted papers. However, many authors had previously regarded the review process as being too slow. When the La Jolla group took over, the previous Editors had already begun to streamline the handling of manuscripts (1). However, the JCI had also become a victim of its own success, and was experiencing an increased volume of manuscript submissions (see Fig. 1). We therefore instituted several changes aimed at improving the speed and efficiency of the review process, without compromising quality. These included the introduction of a uniform submission form, further computerization of manuscript tracking, liberal use of FAX and overnight mailing services , limitation of revisions to a single cycle, and the introduction of a screening review system for manuscripts. Of all these, the most novel (and consequently, the most controversial) was the screening review process. The rationale behind this system is outlined elsewhere (1, 2). Subsequent evaluation indicated that while not without its own flaws, this system appeared successful from the perspective of most authors, reviewers, and the editors (2, 3). If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it is interesting to note that many other journals have …