Author + information
- Spencer B. King III, MD, Editor-in-Chief, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions⁎ ()
- ↵⁎Address for correspondence to:
Spencer B. King III, MD, Editor-in-Chief, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, Saint Joseph's Heart and Vascular Institute, 5665 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30342
As editors of JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, we are often asked whether we are enjoying editing this journal. The questions seem to imply that editing a journal must be an onerous task without much endorphin stimulation. I find that perception far from the truth. Actually, reading about what our colleagues and trainees are producing gives me great hope for the future of cardiovascular investigation. Looking forward is a great way to retard aging and the exposure to ideas of the young and enthusiastic is highly rewarding. Our trainees seem to have unidirectional vision in this regard since looking backward is less valued. A case in point: I recently returned from the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions meeting in Las Vegas, which by the way was quite excellent. During a session organized for fellows-in-training, I posed the question, “What are some of the contributions of John Simpson?” When no hands were raised in the group, I was afraid to ask if anyone had ever heard of Andreas Gruentzig. The adage “to ignore history is to risk repeating history” is appropriate for interventional cardiology. Despite our apparent rapid obsolescence, I do remain optimistic for the future but hope that the lessons of the past will not be completely ignored. The journal does not have historic articles but I can recommend a short streaming video on the contributions of interventional cardiology to health care and science, which is available on the JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions website. A longer version of the video is available at the display celebrating interventional cardiology at Heart House in Washington, DC.
Back to the journal. Currently we receive about 50 papers each month, and I look at all of them, although the associated editors and reviewers do much of the heavy lifting. Manuscripts come from 6 continents (nothing yet from Antarctica), and the quality continues to improve. Some of the ideas that spark studies are very familiar and, admittedly, some are worn, but others are quite novel and exciting. I have long felt that the best way to learn is to teach, and the conduct of a clinical investigation with a clear hypothesis is one of the highest forms of teaching. The construction of a well-done report with the knowledge that experienced reviewers will criticize what is written is daunting. The reward, however, is worth all the effort.
Currently, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions can only accept 1 in 5 of the papers submitted, and it is often painful to reject well-done manuscripts. Even when papers are not accepted, the contribution of an excellent review should not be viewed in the same light as that rejection you received after mustering the nerve to invite her to the prom (although that was also a learning experience). Some well-done reviews almost rival the effort that went into the production of the manuscript itself, and they should be viewed by the author as a valuable, free educational experience. The reviewers are selected because of their expertise of the subject, and their performance is also graded by the editors. All-in-all, no papers are without merit and the experience of writing them and thoughtfully responding to the reviews is often most rewarding.
From the perspective of the editors, the opportunity to see all of this work from those who will shape the future of interventional cardiology is a gift. Yes, our spouses do not always agree but they should take comfort that we are having fun, and there are no green fees!
- American College of Cardiology Foundation