This past summer I was contacted by a colleague who had just attended the Gordon Conference on Ion Channels. The glowing account given of the conference ranked it as exceptional: outstanding speakers, exciting research, and great scientific interactions. Other attendees with whom I spoke rated the conference similarly. The meeting clearly was an example of science at its best: a gathering of physiologists working on problems of mutual interest, sharing ideas on the hot topics, and challenging each other in a healthy competition for deeper understanding.
In the communication, our colleague suggested that it would be strategically smart for the JGP to have had a presence at the meeting and to plan for attendance at future meetings, with hopes that the editor and staff would not only promote the Journal, but also directly encourage scientists with outstanding work to publish it in the JGP: “Promoting the Journal at these small, select meetings may be another way to gain input on how to keep the Journal at the forefront of physiology and keep its format relevant as we move forward into the ever more electronic environment.” The overall good spirit of these comments spoke well of our colleague’s respect for the JGP, and of a desire to see it thrive by publishing the newest and best research. Our colleague also noted that an editor from Neuron was present, intent on learning about the newest and hottest results in the field, and attentive as various attendees made a case for their studies to be published in Neuron.
My initial response to these comments was, “We were there,” in the person of attendees who are members of the JGP editorial board, including Chris Miller, an associate editor, Bruce Bean, Kevin Foskett, Sharona Gordon, Zhe Lu (conference coorganizer), Ann Rittenhouse, Brad Rothberg, and Anita Zimmerman. The associate editors and editorial board members of the JGP are fully empowered to represent it to the physiological community. Among the ideas about the JGP that we hope they freely share is their understanding of its value system, embodied in its review process and its publication policies and practices. As to the review process, our associate editors select reviewers with known competence and carefully “review the reviews” to ensure fairness and accuracy of judgment (“Kudos to reviewers for the JGP”; February 2009; JGP 133:129–130). As to publication policies, the JGP is committed to publishing thoroughly vetted scientific papers of the highest quality with mechanistic insight, with all methods and results needed to establish the conclusions in the body of the paper, ideals we maintain are at the core of enduring science. As to practical implementation, our median turnaround time from submission to initial decision for single manuscripts is 32 days.
As a journal whose scientific content is managed by part-time editors who are also practicing scientists, the JGP depends a great deal on board members to spread the word about its values and other good qualities. We strongly encourage our board to be ambassadors for the Journal. We also hope that you—our authors and readers—will be inspired by the exceptional quality of our editorial process and scientific content, and promote the JGP to your colleagues.
All said and done, however, there remains a feeling in our colleague’s comments that the JGP editors and staff could do better. Here are three ideas to consider. First, we have recently undergone a thorough remake of our electronic profile, revamping our website to make it much more attractive and loaded with value-adding functionality, such as ready access to our newest and to our most cited articles, and the capability of viewing articles in a variety of convenient formats, as described by The Rockefeller University Press Executive Editor Mike Rossner (“New style, same substance”; May 2010; JGP 135:393). Please visit us regularly, and put us on your browser toolbar. Second, we will assemble a downloadable packet of key documents describing the JGP, its history, policy, and practices for you to share with your scientific colleagues, accessible through our website. Third, we encourage you to contact us, share your thoughts and ideas, and challenge us to become still better in attracting and publishing the best physiological research. We will take your comments seriously and do our best to respond to them in writing and address them in practice.
