Ensuring the High Quality of Journal of Nutrition Publications

As I begin to complete my second term as editor, I would like to communicate with Journal of Nutrition (JN) authors and readers about some of the issues facing publishers these days and some of the ways in which the journal has, or may in the near future, modify JN procedures to meet various concerns. Our goal is to balance the interests of authors for a fair and timely review with the interests of everyone—authors, readers, libraries, and publishers alike – for a publication product that will stand the test of time, i.e., research that can be repeated, is fully reported, and is of high value to the research community. Almost every day, scientists such as you and I receive solicitations to send our manuscripts to new journals, some of which promise a rapid decision and/or immediate publication. Some new journals are undoubtedly reputable, or may become so, but none have a track record yet, some will not survive, and some have been described as “predatory” due to lack of transparency about their costs and/or misstatements about the composition of their editorial boards, etc. In contrast, JN enjoys an affiliation with a strong, established scientific society; has a track record that has been developed over many decades; and is supported by a team of strong scientists serving as editors and editorial board members and a professional staff with decades of experience. JN has been published continuously since 1928, when the American Institute of Nutrition (AIN, the founding society of ASN) was established. Our goal is to publish highquality research that addresses nutritional mechanisms, defined broadly so that the content of the journal covers a wide range of nutritional sciences. Currently, JN’s acceptance rate stands at ;25%, an indication that the journal is selective. I firmly believe there is value in reputation and longevity, and I highly value the consistent quality of the papers that are published in JN. This does not mean that we are set in our ways and will not make changes or be responsive to changes in the publications landscape. In response to authors’ concerns, we have relaxed certain requirements that some told us were too stringent. In the last year, we have begun allowing table and figure measurement units in standard clinical terms, such as glucose in mg/dL. We still prefer SI units but realize that they are not always the most familiar units in a given field. We will allow text phrases like “Figure 2 shows.,” even though we still prefer a descriptive sentence followed by “(Fig. 2).” These are small changes, but they maymake the process of writing for JN a little more user friendly. On the other hand, there is an increasing concern that a higher level of reporting standards is needed in the biomedical sciences. Over the last decade there has been a trend toward abbreviated methods sections (sometimes relegated to small print at the end of the text, although not in JN); this trend is almost certainly over and more detail and specification will be required for almost all reporting of methods in the future. Presently, our journal’s manuscripts in the field of epidemiology require a CONSORT diagram, which specifies the study design, flow, and subject retention. Although JN has not so far required registration of clinical studies, this may become the norm in the future. Authors can expect to be asked to specify whether their end points are primary, secondary, etc., and whether these end points were prespecified or represent a post hoc analysis. This increase in reporting detail will help readers understand precisely what the original intent of the study was and how the data are related to the study’s goals. Manuscripts that report animal studies will be required to be thorough with regard to reporting the species, strain, and supplier of the animals; the numbers assigned per group and whether any were removed; the diets used; housing conditions; matings, if any; and euthanasia methods. Reagents must be specified and experimental conditions described in sufficient detail for the study to be reproduced in other laboratories. We now ask authors presenting gel blots and similar data to specify the molecular weights of their analyte(s) on the figure.Wewill challenge statements such as “the experiment was repeated 3 times with similar results” by requesting that the other 2 experiments be provided as supplementary data. Regarding statistics, JN has always had a strong reputation for a high level of reporting, and we do not plan to relax this. In fact, it seems that JN is ahead of the times, because other journals are recognizing the need for more detailed reporting of statistical methods and analysis. The motivation for improved reporting standards is to increase the transparency of the research process and to ensure a high likelihood that the research that is published will be reproducible. A consequence of improved reporting standards could be a somewhat longer review process. Conversely, however, as authors provide more details, it may make the review process easier for reviewers. However, high-quality peer review does take time, because peer reviewers are also busy scientists, and reviewers, editors, and staff each require the time necessary to ensure that reporting standards and editorial standards are met. We at JN will do our best to keep the review process as timely as possible but not at the expense of a thorough critical review. In January 2014, Teresa A. Davis will assume the role of editor-in-chief. We will work together before then to ensure