Abstract
The quality of scientific publications depends on the submitted material and the reviewing process. The Journal receives an increasing number of manuscripts of the highest scientific quality that undergo peer-review. Referees are chosen based on the suggestions of the authors, the experience of the Editor-in-chiefs, and the track record of the referee, which is accessible in the database of Manuscript Central. The database provides information on how many manuscripts a referee has had for review, the time course of the process, and the quality of the review based on the Editor-in-chiefs' assessment. Based on past experience and the topics of the manuscripts submitted in 2010 and 2011, we have invited new members of the Editorial Board, now active since 1 April 2011. The new members are Robert Andres, Ferenc Bari, Turgay Dalkara, Rick Dijkhuizen, Karl Kasischke, Andrew Maas, R Loch Macdonald, Malcolm Macleod, Kazuto Masamoto, Andreas Meisel, Kâmil Uludaĝ, Tadeusz Wieloch, and Berislav Zlokovic.
At the same time, we gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the following who have contributed greatly to the Journal in the past, and who now step down as Editorial Board Members to give room for the new-comers. The retired members are Alain Buisson, Steven H Graham, Edward Hall, W-Dieter Heiss, Hidehiro Iida, Hiroyuki Kato, Ron Kupers, Michael E Moseley, Michael A Moskowitz, Nancy J Rothwell, Ursula Sonnewald, Kirsten Thomsen, and Hiroshi Yamauchi.
A great Thank You to the retired members and a great Welcome to the incoming Editorial Board members.
Most recently, we introduced new types of publication formats in the Journal. The commentary represents a new possibility for authors to express their opinions regarding other papers published in our Journal. Feature article commentaries are the scientific editorials related to a Featured Article in which one of the referees puts that particular paper into perspective. Mini-reviews are succinct descriptions of upcoming hot topics in the Journal, briefer than normal reviews. Opinions represent a new publication format in which the Editor-in-chiefs accept the bias of the authors, but on the other hand make the point that this is a discussion article, not a review. The purpose of all this is to bring life to the Journal and to encourage scientific discussions in the open—we want to bring disagreements concerning important scientific topics into the limelight. It is essential for the scientific process to provide professional platforms on which controversial hypotheses and results can be discussed with transparent arguments. We want the Journal to have a central role in this respect. In addition, the Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism web site on Facebook can be used as forum for scientific discussions. We encourage you to use both the printed and the social web format to bring life to science and look forward to receiving the best of your work as submissions to the Journal.