Abstract
As Interim Editor, I offer profuse apologies to all those authors who have experienced a delay in the processing of their manuscripts submitted to JMB over the past 6 months. This has been occasioned by the ongoing search for a new Editor, a situation which had prompted Sean Hughes to step in as acting editor. His resilient efforts resulted in a sound position, but his illness, which tragically proved fatal, 1 left the Journal temporarily rudderless, hence prompting this interim appointment until the end of 2025. I offer my heartfelt thanks to the members of the Editorial Board from whom I have received unwavering support in my efforts to clear the backlog, work currently ongoing.
Returning to the editorial chair after an absence of five years and proceeding through the many submitted papers has once again set me thinking about the purposes and scope of the Journal. It must be acknowledged that the potential limits of “medical biography” are incredibly wide, moreso perhaps than envisaged by our founding editor, John Moll, back in 1993. Re-reading his inaugural editorial, he referred to “Sections covering different facets of biographical interest (i.e., Physicians, Surgeons, Investigators, Places, ‘Truants’, Patients, Bibliographies, Iconographies, Collections, ‘Moments’)”. 2 In 2025–2026, should these categories be updated? Without wishing to be either prescriptive or proscriptive, particularly for any incoming editor, it may be necessary to limit in some ways the material judged appropriate for inclusion in JMB, if only in order not to overwhelm the restricted page limit to the extent of preventing timely publication in print (all accepted articles appear promptly online).
Reference might usefully be made here to the five thematic “dramas” outlined in John Burnham's introductory medical history text, viz.: (1) the healer; (2) the sick person; (3) diseases; (4) discovering and communicating knowledge; and (5) medicine and health interacting with society.
3
To take these “dramas” in order:
As for healers, who are likely to be the subject of the majority of contributions to the Journal, it must be clearly stated that biography is not necrology. Accounts of still living individuals, however august, must be even less acceptable. Historically informed appraisal is simply not possible in either of these circumstances. The narratives of sick individuals, which are likely to account for a minority of contributions to the Journal,
4
are always welcome, if carefully contextualised, as these generally present a different perspective on “medical biography” from that of healers. As for diseases, I have my doubts about the inclusion of retrospective diagnoses in the Journal, unless carefully expounded within the framework (ethical/ontological/epistemic) championed by Muramoto.
5
There must be a risk that retrodiagnostic accounts may eschew any biographical element(s). Discovering and communicating knowledge, key factors for Burnham, seem to me to be areas meriting encouragement, since these processes are usually tightly linked to biography, and since discoveries are often collaborative rather than individual, there may be possibilities here not only for biography but also for prosopography.
6
Interactions between medicine and society, though obviously of importance, may perhaps be better served by other journals.
These are merely presented as ideas in the hope of ensuring that “rigorous scholarship” 1 remains central to the ethos of the Journal, particularly in the era of AI.
At time of proofing (September 2025), the process to appoint a new editor is in progress. Whoever succeeds, I wish her/him the very best of luck, confident that many interesting and challenging manuscripts will continue to arrive in the JMB editor's inbox.