|
Interview With The
Editors Of The International Journal of Epidemiology
Following the surprise resignations of the Co-Editors-in-Chief of the
International Journal of Epidemiology, George Davey Smith and
Shah Ebrahim, we asked the editors a series of questions via
email about the journal and the reasons for their resignations. Below
are their unedited responses.
EM:
What is the short list of your accomplishments at the IJE?
GDS & SE:
♦
Commissioning contemporary
commentaries on often little-known historical re-prints
♦
Cohort
Profiles (updated as needed) which have increased the knowledge of
available sources of data and improved data access for researchers
♦
Special issues (e.g. Mendelian
Randomization; Epigenetics) and themed issues, which in some cases
have kick-started interest in areas not previously seen as central to
epidemiology
♦
Increase in commissioned
material from zero to around 50% of published content, including
commentaries on papers, essay length book reviews, symposia on books,
“for debate” papers and our “education corner” section
♦
Employment
of an Academic Editor (Dr. Jane Ferrie) to improve triage of
submitted manuscripts and lead a range of innovations. The time and
expertise required for this has certainly improved the
quality and in particular the range of material that has got to the
stage of being considered for
inclusion
♦
Innovations (many taken up by
other journals) in addition to cohort profiles include: diversions;
press releases; twitter; blogs; photo-essays; Health &
Demographic Surveillance Study profiles; Data Resource Profiles;
Software Application profiles; and running scientific writing courses
♦
Rise in annual submissions
from less than 500 (2000) to around 1800 (2015) with a substantial
increase in average quality
Rise in impact factor from <2 to 9+ (not a general
trend among epi/public health journals) – we fully recognise the
limitations of impact factors but feel that other researchers reading
and using work is probably a good thing, and we have been amused by
the reaction of other journals to this (e.g see the slightly
humourless replies in Epidemiology to our two letters – in response to
their pieces – on this):
https://tinyurl.com/zxbu9tk
And
https://tinyurl.com/h7bc9n6
♦
The “In Depth” network
profiles which have increased the awareness of the international
community of these important resources, running workshops “in country”
to help authors put these together
EM:
Succinctly stated, what has been your driving vision in bringing the
journal to its current place?
GDS & SE:
We stated our vision in a 2001 editorial - the first issue for which
we were fully responsible for all of the content in February 2001 –
titled “Epidemiology: is it time to call it a day?”
https://tinyurl.com/zo74up9
We had a clear vision of what we wanted less of: minor analyses from
major studies, scientifically valid but mundane findings. And what we
wanted more of: high quality research conducted in developing
countries, hypothesis papers, epidemiology and effects of indications
and effects of intervention (i.e. public health services research),
greater interdisciplinary contributions, letters.
We also wanted to
be different from conventional medical journals by broadening the
scope of what we published under the umbrella of epidemiology and by
regular innovation of new types of commissioned material.
We worked together as co-editors, providing mutual support, and also
involved our 40+ editors in developing proposals for new innovations.
EM:
Why did you decide to resign at this time?
GDS & SE:
We did not plan to resign in 2016. Early in 2015 the
Executive Council of the International Epidemiology Association (IEA)
determined that they could no longer finance the IJE at its current
level. The IEA, in discussion with Oxford University Press (OUP, our
publishers) reduced our funding considerably without involving us in
the discussions in any way or allowing any negotiation. We have
received no personal remuneration for running the journal for 16
years, and we know the journal costs are about ¼ that of the nearest
comparable journal in our field, so we found this an odd decision.
The reduction in funding we were told was due to losses incurred by
the 2014 Alaska World Congress of Epidemiology which had depleted the
IEA’s reserves. Of course, it is ironic that IJE provides IEA with the
large majority of its income and plans were in process for developing
an IJE Open journal which would provide a further source of income for
IEA.
Prior to these
events, we were considering resigning from editing the IJE with the
retirements of Jane Ferrie (Academic Editor) and Shah Ebrahim in
2017. Furthermore, the IJE workload has increased dramatically over
the last couple of years which has made it difficult to justify the
substantial commitment of GDS’s time for IJE work. Obviously, we
would have liked to leave under different circumstances and at a time
of our choosing. We have always had excellent relationships with IEA
and OUP until the last couple of years, when things have become
difficult as we mention above regarding funding, and have included
declining services from the publishers (e.g. copy editing and proof
production is now poor).
We hope that it
proves possible to find Editors-in-Chief for IJE who will carry it to
greater things in the future. We have agreed to stay in post to the
end of 2016 to facilitate a smooth handover.
■
|