This will be my last missive as editor-in-chief of this journal. Transitions are challenging, but they also provide opportunity to reflect on what works and what might benefit from further consideration. I have generally chosen to focus the opening editorials not on the specific contents of the journal issue, but on current events and practice topics. The goal, with variable degrees of success, was to use this space to encourage thoughts on best practice regarding research publication. I will focus this piece on some of the less codified practices that have been followed during my tenure.

Requests for multiple “first author” credits are occasionally received, but they have not been accepted. The most extreme example was a recent submission that included a request for all six co-authors to be acknowledged as “first authors.” The fundamental problem is that such requests go against convention and are probably not meaningful in any case. The relative weight of first, second, senior, and corresponding author credit is generally accepted, even if the actual contribution of each individual is unknown. There is no mechanism for acknowledging different patterns of credit in the standard search engines, and unusual claims will often carry little or no weight. Evaluating merit is challenging, and certainly beyond the reasonable expectations of editors, which puts it back into the hands of the author panel to work out. Part of the struggle of professional development is learning and earning one’s way through various authorship positions.

This journal operates in a single-blind manner, with reviewers having the option to identify themselves if desired. I respect those who choose to identify themselves as a matter of course, but I am also happy to leave the choice to reviewers. There can be a range of motivations to opt for anonymity, including anxiety over future professional conflicts or interactions made personal. My primary concern has been that all reviews are respectful and constructive, effectively written as though the reviewer would be known in a fully open design. There are questions, though, as to whether the presence of author and institution names might bias the review process, in either a positive or negative manner. There are challenges in both assessment and implementation that make these difficult questions to address, but it is certainly worth consideration of the available research to decide whether the relative merits and pitfalls of any approach make changes worth testing or implementing for a niche journal such as WEM.

Norms in scientific publishing include documentation of research ethics approval and, where relevant, clinical trials registration. While these elements are undoubtedly desirable, decisions have to be made when submissions are received that do not comply with these norms. The simplest position is to call these absolute requirements, but this can bring its own bias. Some investigators, particularly those working outside of the western world, may follow credible but different research standards. Blanket disqualification may be counterproductive in restricting potential content and in discouraging scholarship. The journal practice has been to consider non-compliant reports on a case-by-case basis, with feedback provided through the review process intended to aid standardization of future efforts. The options and implications deserve ongoing consideration.

Questions arise on a regular basis as to how much curation is required for a healthy journal. Those with small submission numbers may benefit most from planned content. Efforts to curate likely become less important when a critical mass of unsolicited submissions becomes the norm. WEM approaches 300 original submission each year, and even with an overall accept rate less than 40% in recent years this provides a substantial base. It will remain important to look for knowledge gaps that researchers and authors can be encouraged to address, but this cannot compromise review standards. Essentially, the fact that an article or review may be encouraged or invited should not have any bearing on the evaluation of the submitted work. Substandard submissions, regardless of the interest in the topic, should be rejected if sufficient improvement cannot be achieved through reasonable revision. The journal practice has been to encourage almost all submissions, but expressly with no promises regarding the ultimate disposition. Plans and intent are unimportant. The final product must pass or fail on its own merits.

The question of arbitrary rejection rates also comes up intermittently. Some may feel that specific article types, for example, case reports, should be arbitrarily capped. The fatal flaw in this, though, is the lack of knowledge of what will come in next. There is no way to compare the quality of what is in hand with what may or may not be submitted in the future. The only rational approach is a critical and objective evaluation of each submission in real time. The bar for acceptance should inexorably rise as the authority of a journal grows (usually reflected in a rising number and quality of submissions), but there is no comfortable way to arbitrarily apply caps.

Journals approach final disposition decisions differently. Some offer diffuse authority, with section or associate editors able to make final decisions. While this approach can reduce the workload of the editor-in-chief, it also makes it more difficult to maintain a uniform set of standards. While great weight should be given to the recommendations of proven subject matter experts, a critical top-level evaluation of all manuscripts, reviews, and recommendations can be very important to ensure continuity in the final product.

Editorial boards are important to concentrate and capitalize on skill, expertise, and institutional memory. Arbitrary limits on duration of service are counterproductive to the great service that can be provided by the panels. The only factor that should be considered for term of service is ongoing effort. Members should indeed step down, with or without encouragement, if interest and contributions wane, but those with ongoing commitment and high value service should continue without restriction.

Research journals should stand as credible repositories of objective scientific endeavor. They are expected to reflect evolving social and practice standards that can affect research efforts and analyzes. There is no simple solution to avoiding minefields, but the best protection is likely to remain in objectivity. It is the process of research that is important, not the outcome. If the process is clear, meaningful, and appropriate, and the interpretations objective and valid, the direction of the outcome should not be a factor in decision-making. The goal for a credible journal is to publish the work worthy of being published, regardless of the directions of the findings.

As my tenure draws to a close, I am pleased to announce that William D. Binder, MD has been appointed as the new editor-in-chief of WEM. Dr. Binder holds a bachelor of arts degree in European history from the University of Pennsylvania, a master of arts degree in the history of science from Harvard University, and a medical degree from George Washington University. He completed board certifications in internal medicine and emergency medicine. He holds an academic appointment as an associate professor of emergency medicine at Brown University and has served as editor-in-chief of the Rhode Island Medical Journal since 2018. Welcome aboard.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wem.2022.07.006

© 2022 Wilderness Medical Society. Published by Elsevier Inc.