2011—year in review

Article Outline

• Copyright

The year 2011 marked the first year the Journal of Critical Care published on a bimonthly schedule. This, coupled with an increased page allocation and accelerated submission rate, has created a robust and increasingly visible publication that depends upon its volunteer reviewers to succeed. Therefore, it is not only appropriate and fitting but also a pleasure and responsibility to thank the Journal's nine hundred fifty-eight completed reviews (out of 2024 invitations) 2011 reviewers for their expert commentaries, unstinting commitment to excellence, and selfless dedication to the concept that peer review is one of the highest forms of academic commitment and a bastion of journalistic integrity. This year has seen a number of challenges to the reputation of the process, but despite several high profile examples of malfeasance, the overall regard for journalistic provenance remains high, and its viability is assured. Please review the names of this year's reviewers and, with all of us at Elsevier, thank them for their commitment to academic excellence and publishing integrity.

This issue's electronic section features a number of important international perspectives, beginning with an article based on the results of a United Kingdom survey on zinc supplementation in the intensive care unit (open access) and followed by a number of submissions from around the globe discussing common problems with solutions that are often dictated more by available resources and institutional and national prerogatives than by strict adherence to internationally recognized guidelines, most of which are crafted in resource-rich environments. The modifications necessitated by regional, national, and local politics; resource allocation; and population health awareness that mitigate against the implementation of sophisticated guidelines that often depend upon rapid response to a patient's condition within minutes are impossible for many locales. However, innovation, disciplined management of scarce supplies, and human resourcefulness often create opportunities for therapeutic modifications that improve the original recommendations. The electronic section of the Journal this month highlights some of these problems and solutions and, in Nigeria, reports results achievable in a resource-constrained environment.

Thanking reviewers and increasing submissions are 2 of the more pleasurable task for an editor; manuscript selection is, in some respects, one of the least enjoyable. Authors must regard the process as arbitrary at best and unenlightened and callous in the least favorable interpretation. Therefore, perhaps it is wise to initiate the 2012 publication cycle with a brief description of the manuscript selection process and priorities for inclusion. The Journal is the official “voice” of the World Federation of Societies and Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and the Society for Complexity in Acute Illness. To fulfill this obligation, the Journal is committed to accept diverse manuscripts that reflect the missions and geographic distribution of the organizations that we represent. In addition, member nation–sponsored international, regional, or annual meetings are eligible to have prize-winning abstract/poster presentations published in the electronic section of the Journal. Many organizations have taken advantage of this opportunity, and it is gratifying to note that a number of abstracts thus selected have subsequently been converted into completed manuscripts of very high quality that reflect well on the authors and their institutions. However, this accounts for a relatively small proportion of the Journal's annual page allocation; the remainder is dedicated to manuscripts selected from authors around the world who submit original articles for consideration. At present, the Journal restricts publications to results from clinical trial and national or international surveys, administrative, outcome, and educational material and member society activities. Letters to the Editor or responses to published articles are encouraged. Animal experiments and most case reports are referred to other publication sources more interested in this material.

Manuscript processing is straightforward; the work is submitted for publication consideration via the Elsevier Electronic Submissions service at the Journal's Web site (jccjournal.org)—click on Authors. Submitted manuscripts are received and undergo initial editorial review in the Los Angeles office. Manuscripts selected for further consideration are forwarded to reviewers; all authors are requested to suggest the names of 3 reviewers who are familiar with the work. This is an important step, and all authors should consider their suggestions carefully. Individuals should be selected based on their content expertise and lack of perceived or real bias; for example, it is important that reviewers are not from the same institution and often not from the same country as the author. The Journal will also match additional reviewers from our database, and each manuscript should receive at least 3 reviews. Occasionally, if this is not possible, I will make a decision to proceed with a lower number, but to preserve the peer review process, I believe two to be a minimum. Some manuscripts may be rejected for lack of peer review; if this is the case, I inform the author specifically of our inability to obtain the requisite number of reviewers.

Each manuscript is evaluated independently by the assigned reviewers, and the following areas are scored on a 5-point scale with 5 being the highest: originality, importance, and priority for publication. In addition, the reviewer has the following options: reject, reject and resubmit, and revise and accept. As Editor, I may reject a manuscript without review; in this instance, I write a detailed note to the author explaining this decision. Authors are encouraged to work with the reviewers and editorial board to create manuscripts acceptable for publication; the average number of revisions before publication is two. When a manuscript is returned for review, the author is given the opportunity to either revise according to the suggestions presented in the review or rebut in a point-by-point discussion for my review. In all cases, the Journal attempts to maintain close contact with the author, and the Journal's Managing Editor, Ms Diane McIntee, is always available to answer questions at journal.criticalcare@gmail.com. Final decisions will usually include a letter to the author indicating the number of reviewers who accepted vs the number contacted, the scaled ranking on the above 3 categories, and an explanation from the editor regarding the final disposition. The author is always welcome to question decisions, but it should be recognized that good material may be unable to be published due to space constraints and content priorities. In this instance, the author is invited to resubmit the manuscript to another publication without prejudice, indicating that the submission should be regarded as a new and not previously rejected manuscript. I would appreciate any comments or concerns regarding the described process addressed the journal as noted above.

I look forward to an exciting year ahead and hope that the Journal continue to represent your ideas and to support your prerogatives.