Abstract
A
This issue has the last of the “Sightings” features prepared by John Severinghaus. John has carried this torch since the inception of the Journal, a mammoth undertaking. He states that this has involved reviewing about two hundred articles each quarter in journals that have relevance to high altitude medicine and biology and creating a short report on each. John has cheerfully and efficiently carried out this responsibility in spite of now being in his 92nd year according to my calculations. Would we all be as sharp as John at that age.
Clearly it is no small challenge to fill his shoes. However there is no cause for alarm. Peter Bärtsch and Erik Swenson have agreed to step into the breach with the promise that the feature will continue at its high level. I know that many readers turn to “Sightings” to catch up on what's going on and that the feature is very popular.
While we are on the topic of special features of the Journal let me say a few words about the Pro/Con articles. These are also avidly read by many people. Sometimes readers complain that a Pro article, for example, takes a one-sided view of an issue, but of course this is part of the pattern. Pro/Con is a debate where each proponent makes as strong a case as he can, and he also has an opportunity to briefly rebut the arguments of his opponent. However I know for a fact that most of the contributors are clearly aware of both sides of the issue. On the other hand the debate format is often informative and entertaining.
Another special feature is that each June issue has several articles devoted to a Special Topic. In 2014 this will be “The Central Nervous System at High Altitude.” Again this is a popular feature and affords an opportunity to review an in-depth analysis of some area of high altitude medicine and biology.
We are always interested in suggestions for new subjects for both the Pro/Con series and the Special Topics issue so if you have ideas for one or both of these please let me know.
On a different note, from time to time a few people have questioned whether a journal devoted to high altitude medicine and biology is really necessary. Actually this is an interesting question. When I was first approached by Mary Ann Liebert, the publisher, I was reluctant to take on the job as editor-in-chief. My first reaction was to say that there were plenty of journals and we do not need another. I should add that this was 15 years ago, long before the recent avalanche of new and sometimes scientifically questionable journals appeared along with the push for Open Access. However Mary Ann Liebert twisted my arm and assured me that there was a niche for a journal in this area. I now realize that she was absolutely right. There are many important articles in our discipline that would have a hard time finding a home in other journals. Of course if you feel that your article deserves to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine or Nature, go for it. But there are many very useful articles that cannot easily be published elsewhere, and we are glad to assume this responsibility.
This might suggest that the review process is lax. Not at all. For example in 2013 some 130 manuscripts were submitted but because the Journal is published quarterly, only a small fraction can be included. We are fortunate to have a large cadre of reviewers who carry out this time-consuming responsibility with great diligence and no personal gain.
So onward and upward. The number of manuscripts being submitted to the Journal continues to increase every year, and indeed the amount of research being done in the area of high altitude medicine and biology is clearly steadily growing. We are proud to be the only peer-reviewed journal exclusively devoted to high altitude medicine and biology and the future looks bright.