© 1999 American Heart Association, Inc.
Editorial |
Goals of the Editorial Process
As we begin our tenure as Editors of Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, we will outline goals for reviews and reviewers. Although we realize that these guidelines are not necessary for experienced, superb reviewers, there are three goals for clarifying review criteria for both reviewers and authors. The clarification may:
- assist less experienced reviewers who are eager to hone their
skills;
assist authors, by encouraging reviewers to focus on major points;
and promote a dialogue about reviews and how to improve the review process. We will consider for publication letters that address principles of the review process.
The overall goal of reviews and the editorial process is to assist the author in publication of a concise, convincing paper that provides important new data and concepts to our readers. It is important that manuscripts are reviewed rapidly and then published without undue delay. We suggest that goals of reviewers and editors are to:
- select the most appropriate papers for publication;
assist authors and readers by improving the quality of papers in relation to validity of conclusions and clarity of the message. Reviewers generally should request additional experiments only if the experiments are important for support or rejection of the hypothesis that is stated in the manuscript;
and avoid offending authors, particularly those whose manuscripts are rejected.
In my opinion, the first goal of a review is to determine whether
the hypothesis is clearly stated, important, and novel. If a study does
not meet these criteria, the manuscript may not achieve a