Accelerating the Publication of Oncology Research: Dr. Stephen A. Cannistra Reflects on 5 Years as JCO Editor in Chief

Mar 02, 2017

In the October 20, 2016, issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO), Editor in Chief Stephen A. Cannistra, MD, FASCO, described the journal’s accomplishments since 2011, including a rising impact factor that now places JCO in the top 1% of all journals evaluated by Thompson Reuters, in his column, “In the Pursuit of Excellence: Reflections From the Editor in Chief of Journal of Clinical Oncology.” In the following interview, Dr. Cannistra provides an in-depth description of the journal’s recent initiatives and accomplishments.

AC: During your time as editor in chief, an important goal of the journal has been to expedite the publication process for articles. How have new processes allowed important research to reach readers more quickly?

SC: JCO recognizes that discoveries in oncologic practice have been occurring at a rapid pace. Many of these discoveries have an immediate impact on patient care, including new tyrosine kinase inhibitors and novel immune checkpoint inhibitors. As an oncologic specialty journal, JCO has the widest oncology readership in the world, and we attract some of the most important, practice-changing research in the field. That’s why I felt it necessary to develop a mechanism for recognizing and expeditiously processing manuscripts that have practice-changing potential. Our Rapid Review program offers authors who have groundbreaking research the benefit of a first decision in 3 working days after editorial assignment, and our Rapid Communication pathway ensures that such papers are then published within approximately 4 weeks after acceptance. There is no doubt that these changes have accelerated the dissemination of oncologic knowledge to our readership, which, in turn, benefits our patients.

In addition, I have initiated an accelerated pathway for pre-submission inquiries, specifically designed to facilitate review and publication of important manuscripts that might have been recently rejected by a high-profile general medical journal, for instance, due to reasons of priority. JCO welcomes the opportunity to evaluate such papers, along with the reviews from the prior journal, in order to determine whether it might be possible to accelerate final decision-making. We feel that there is no need to reinvent the wheel and duplicate the review process if excellent, high-quality reviews have already been performed elsewhere and the manuscript meets JCO’s high standards.

AC: JCO has also introduced new article categories, such as Understanding the Pathway” and Oncology Grand Rounds.” How do these new features help doctors better understand treatment pathways in this era of rapidly evolving treatments?

SC: These features have become some of the most popular new article types in JCO. Both Understanding the Pathway and Oncology Grand Rounds serve as companion articles to original reports published in the same issue. The premise underlying Understanding the Pathway is that busy readers who want to know how a drug works often don’t have time to search for the answers. I felt that a two-page companion article with a single, self-contained figure, relating to an original report published in the same issue, would serve this purpose quite well. Based upon readership feedback, it appears that we are on the right track.

Likewise, busy clinical oncologists want to know how to apply the results of an original report to the care of their patients using real-world examples that might be encountered in daily practice. This was the premise underlying Oncology Grand Rounds, in which a case history would be followed by a discussion of diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for that patient, based not only on a review of pertinent literature but also on the new knowledge provided by the original report published in the same issue of the journal.

Thus, Oncology Grand Rounds helps the original report become the springboard for discussing clinical management, and Understanding the Pathway helps illustrate the biologic basis for the research. This strategy provides our readership with a thematically consistent experience that enhances the value of the original report and makes it more relevant to the daily care of patients.

AC: Another big change during the past 5 years is that the number of associate editors has expanded. How does a growing editorial roster strengthen the journal?

SC: My editors are the heart and soul of JCO. Whatever success I’ve had as editor in chief is a reflection of their hard work and dedication to our mission, which is to improve the lives of patients with cancer. JCO’s organizational structure comprises over 20 editors whom I’ve specifically chosen to provide diversity in geography, institutional affiliation, and areas of expertise. Expanding our editorial roster has allowed us to include experts in many areas, such as phase I trials, neuro-oncology, translational science, and palliative care.

Decisions on a given manuscript are very collaborative. No editor is an island, because every manuscript gets the input of at least two editors; first, editors and peer reviewers reach a decision, then the papers are sent to me for final review and approval. Importantly, given the large size of our editorial roster, it is critical to have a mechanism by which controversial decisions are discussed and consensus is achieved. This is accomplished in part through our frequent conference calls, in which specific manuscripts are discussed and group input is solicited before a final decision is made. Although we have over 20 editors who are geographically dispersed throughout the world, our decision-making reflects a coordinated effort that combines many viewpoints, resulting in what I believe represents a fair process for our authors.

An expanded editorial board has allowed the percentage of randomized trials that JCO publishes to increase substantially, from 17.8% in 2011 to 31.2% in 2016, with a total of 88 randomized trials published by JCO in 2016 alone.

AC: What changes to the JCO website and production workflow might readers see in the coming years?

SC: Improvements in our production workflows in 2016, supported by new vendors and experienced staff, have reduced our time from acceptance to publication by 35%. We continuously review our processes and content layouts to identify additional opportunities to serve our authors and readers. For example, a new feature for 2017 is that articles will clearly display links to all associated content, including data supplements, appendices, podcasts, and companion articles. In 2017, we will be publishing our newest releases daily instead of weekly. This will further shorten our intervals to publication and keep our content fresh. We are also excited to have recently introduced Understanding the Pathway animations, which are brief video distillations of key points in selected articles. These are proving to be quite popular on our newly launched JCO Twitter feed


Advertisement
Back to Top