Physics in Medicine and Biology (PMB) is a journal that originated in the UK but is now rightly regarded as one of the pre-eminent international journals for the publication of material coming within its remit. It is 50 years old and its maturity is an outcome of the consistent support of high performing authors, a supportive and professional publishing house, dedicated referees, many vigorous and conscientious editorial boards and the collective input of the 10 previous Editors as listed in his incoming editorial (January 2000 issue) by the retiring Editor, Professor Alun Beddoe.
The scientific climate and it associated publication modus operandi in the 1950s was very different from that at the current time and the journal has evolved to reflect this. Hence today the scope of content is somewhat broader, the size of the journal is vastly greater, the whole publication process is slicker and more efficient and a paper in PMB is highly prized by its authors and those who look to quality factors and impact.
The quality of the journal still relies on the voluntary labour and expertise of its busy international referees and Board members. For many years I have tried to place my own research material in PMB and encourage my teams to do likewise, not only acknowledging the prestige of the journal but also because of the extraordinarily fast turnaround time of all the processes without any loss of quality. This serves us very well and the publishing team are to be congratulated.
Some things seem to change more slowly or not at all, however. The prediction, when I started my research career, that books and journals would be dinosaurs by now has manifestly not come true and, whilst most of us are addicted (and why not?) to the electronic ways of doing things that can be done by more traditional ways, PMB and a packet of reprints from time to time arriving by post still has a reassuring feel despite the fact that the papers have been `on-line' for a while before.
An incoming editor signals change and in turn this induces in some people expectation, hope of improvement and maybe radical revolution. Others cower and hope for stability, continuation of the same and as little outward sign of change as possible. So I should like to signal that I hope to satisfy both camps. The Editor-in-Chief is primarily a guardian of the journal and should change nothing that does not need changing. Maintaining a standard at the same level is a valuable achievement in itself. This is no different from taking on any other leadership role such as in a team or department. One has to lead by consensus and with respect for the position. Conversely there are things I would like to see improved (otherwise I should not have been hired) and I commit to attempting these but in a spirit of cooperation with the Board, the publisher (IOP), IPEM and the readership. Any other approach would be doomed anyway.
So, what would I like to see changed? Dare I say anything too strongly upfront? Like Alun six years ago I would like there to be more debate via correspondence but this depends on the readers to do more writing along these lines. Personally I feel PMB, like many journals, has developed to the point where most readers sadly can understand only a small fraction of its contents. I have talked to older readers who said they regularly used to read all or half of the journal. Now many of us can manage only the papers in our specialty. Yet this is somewhat inevitable as medical physics has progressed from a fledgling science to the vast activity it is today, topics have become deeply complicated and we cannot and should not reverse the clock. To address this, I would like to see authors provide some form of `intelligible lay-scientific summary' of their paper as a condition of its publication. I think readers would then enjoy reading all, not just some, of these and maybe become attracted to other areas than the ones in which they currently work.
I would like to see the voluntary and anonymous publication of selected referees' comments `tailing' (some) published papers. They would need to be brief, specifically crafted for the purpose, of substantial impact, avoid excess length or editorial detail and above all be polite and constructive. I think this would bring more life into what (for all journals not just PMB) is a somewhat clinically manicured format. Issues requiring detailed response or countering would need to proceed as usual to their own peer-reviewed papers but maybe a quarter page of a reviewer's carefully submitted footnotes might be interesting. It might also be nice to have stated for each paper the referees' expertise and their scientific background. Maintaining referee anonymity would be an undebateable pre-requisite. I don't know if this would be feasible, popular or even generally desirable but I shall ask the Board for their views.
We live in an age when publications serve more needs than the dissemination of knowledge. CVs, careers, future funding, university assessments and so on all depend on the production of a healthy list of peer-reviewed papers. This is also probably unstoppable and younger workers are growing up accepting it while (some) older ones may hark back to less cluttered times. So improving the impact of PMB has to be a goal. An obvious mechanism is just to cut the number of published papers and raise the acceptance standard. Yet this would be deeply unpopular given the above extra reasons to publish and that it is hard to believe PMB is currently publishing `substandard' material. The Board and I will have to address that.
Over the next few years the debate over e-journals versus paper journals, open access publication, and freedom or otherwise of the web will all impact on PMB. Only the day I wrote this I read that in a London lecture Bill Gates has predicted that in just ten years electronic flexipaper with wireless internet access will be able to find anything on the web including journals. Scientists anywhere and everywhere in the world, at home, in the office, on transport, or on the beach, will be able to read journals (if they want this facility that is); so will there be any need for PMB hardcopy? I think there will but many think otherwise. Times will change and we again need to manage the change for good.
I should like to thank the outgoing Editor and all those who have placed confidence in me that I will maintain the good, change and develop what needs to be so treated, contribute some fresh thoughts and serve with energy, dignity and patience.