Editorial: a bittersweet transition: some final thoughts.

“Parting is such sweet sorrow. . . ” It was true for Juliet in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, and it is true for Editors-in-Chief of great journals. I write my final editorial for Endocrinology with some sadness and of course a touch of relief as I hand over my duties to incoming Editor-in-Chief, Andrea Gore. Although immensely rewarding in many ways, the job of the Editor-in-Chief and editors of a journal like Endocrinology, which receives over 1500 submissions per year, is demanding in terms of time. Both as an editor and then as Editor-inChief, it always seemed that just as I was clearing off my virtual desk for a day of rest, all of our authors and reviewers decided to do the same thing, pushing what was on their virtual desks onto our desks to be handled as expediently as possible. With this editorial, I would like to discuss some journal issues and some changes we have made, and I would like to thank the people who make this journal as great as it is. First, I will confess to some regret. My biggest regret is that as editors, we cannot make all of our authors and all of our readers happy all the time. Close to two thirds of the authors who submit manuscripts to Endocrinology get disappointing news. This is often a surprise; few of our colleagues submit manuscripts to Endocrinology that they do not think are worthy of publication in this journal. But with a journal size that allows us to publish about one third of submitted manuscripts, as with all journals, there are going to be “winners” and unfortunate “losers.” And the Journal is not going to be correct on picking those winners and losers 100% of the time. Do reviewers make mistakes in the papers that they recommend for acceptance (or not), and do editors make mistakes in the papers that they accept (or not)? The answer to both questions is an emphatic yes. Although it may seem to unhappy authors that we only make type I errors, that is, rejecting a meritorious manuscript (and we undoubtedly do), we also make type II errors, that is, accepting a paper that really was not as strong as other papers that we did not accept. Unfortunately, this is the nature of a review process that is inherently somewhat subjective. Truth be told, there are times when we choose reviewers who are not as knowledgeable about a topic as we thought they were, and sometimes the most appropriate reviewers are already overcommitted, so they turn down our request to review. I offer my apologies to authors whose papers should have been accepted. I also offer my empathy, because the same thing has happened to me and each and every scientist that I know. Endocrinology is a journal owned by The Endocrine Society. The fact that it is a society-owned journal is a feature that I did not fully appreciate when I took over the reins 5 yr ago. That puts the Journal in a completely different class from nonsociety-owned journals. Like other journals, Endocrinology generates revenue from subscriptions, page charges, and advertisements. Much of this revenue is spent publishing the Journal. The difference between Endocrinology and its sister Endocrine Society journals vs. privately owned journals is that the Journal’s revenue is returned to members of The Endocrine Society in the form of amazing programs that benefit them. For this reason alone, I urge my colleagues to keep The Endocrine Society’s journals among the finest in the field by continuing to submit their best work to the Society’s journals and to make every effort to review manuscripts when asked. By the way, I make a distinction between a society journal and a society-owned journal. A journal that is endorsed, but not owned, by a society does not necessarily generate substantial revenue for that society.