An “Exit”orial

Four years ago, I assumed the mantle of editor of the International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research (IJAMHR).[1] When I took over, I had hoped to build an oeuvre that would justify my appointment to edit the official journal of the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER) – an institution of national importance and my alma mater. Whether I have achieved that is for others to judge. Regardless, I am deeply grateful for this opportunity to share a few reflections that I hope will benefit prospective editors. There are five messages I would like to highlight – each simple in principle but embellished from my experience editing the journal. While primarily directed at prospective authors and editors, who might benefit from knowing how journal editors think and work, these messages may also provide useful, broader insights for journal editors at various stages of their career trajectory and for those who aspire for such positions. Always strive to raise the bar – Elbert Hubbard, the American writer and philosopher, famously defined an editor as “a person employed by a newspaper, whose business it is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to see that the chaff is printed.”[2] I was reminded of this when my distinguished predecessor, Prof. Tamilarasu Kadhiravan, advised me during the handover that to publish better content, one must build a large pool of eligible articles. This is very true; editors should constantly strive to raise the journal’s standards, a goal that requires timely and consistent editorial decisions and quality peer reviews. At IJAMHR, this remains a work in progress, but one that I believe is on a robust trajectory. Build and nurture a committed reviewer pool – Reviewers are the backbone of any journal. We place on record our heartfelt thanks to all reviewers who generously contributed their time and expertise during my stewardship of the journal. Acutely aware of the voluntary nature of their role, I tried to be selective and ensured that only promising manuscripts reached them. Recognizing that good reviewers are busy, a personal message or well-timed reminder often helped. Building a committed quality reviewer pool requires constant effort to identify good reviewers, offer clear guidelines, and express timely appreciation. Over time, we were fortunate to develop an adequate and responsive reviewer pool. The buck stops with you – Though a collective effort, an editor is ultimately responsible for ensuring the published work meets the journal’s standards. To deliver good, useful, and easy-to-understand content to the readers, every manuscript went through peer review and editorial re-review, including scientific vetting and language editing; often, these involved multiple re-reviews till all concerns were satisfactorily addressed. We are very thankful to the authors for their patience and understanding during this process without which our goal of delivering the content in the best possible way to the readers could not have been achieved. Devote time – Journal editing is time-intensive. On average, I dedicated approximately 4–5 cumulative hours to each submission I decided to pursue – starting from the initial screening, through managing the peer review process – and concluding with my editorial re-review(s). With no formal provision for protected editorial time, weekends often became my window for journal work. I learned to make peace with reviewing on the go. Nonetheless, the opportunity to edit manuscripts, engage with authors during this process, and learn from many of them was both a humbling and rewarding experience; it also helped me present my own research better. Your foremost duty is to your readers – An editor’s primary responsibility is to provide accurate, informative, and relevant content, presented in an engaging style for the readers. The entire editorial process is designed to meet this objective. With no dearth of journals or content, it is important to meet readers’ demands to stay afloat. Being a broad-based journal, we received submissions from all specialties, and I often reached out to my colleagues from other specialties to judge the novelty and relevance of the submitted research; their feedback was very helpful in deciding whether to pursue the submission or not. The editorial re-review process we adopted at the journal also covered stylistic aspects such as language and presentation to help meet our objective of delivering engaging content that meets journal standards and expectations. Throughout my tenure, we remained steadfast in our primary responsibility: Serving the readers. Every submission underwent a plagiarism check, peer review, and editorial re-review. This standard was uniformly applied, even to manuscripts submitted by senior colleagues and former mentors. Upholding the integrity of the publication process – even when it was personally or professionally difficult – was a responsibility we never compromised. Every editor hopes to leave their own footprint on the journal’s functioning. Our immediate focus was to increase the number of original articles published per issue – a prerequisite for indexing. Admittedly, this was an organic process that involved revamping the editorial board, clarifying the journal’s role and focus, refining the submission categories, and providing authors with clear, constructive desk rejection letters. We also prioritized timeliness and transparency in editorial decisions because we believed that authors value fair and prompt evaluations. To improve clarity, we pruned the types of articles in the submission menu, removing rarely used categories and replacing ambiguous terms like “dispatch” with “case report.” Finally, to decrease the time from acceptance to publication, we started an online ahead-of-print section to allow articles to be viewed and cited before they appear in an issue with full bibliographic details. Though it is difficult to quantify the impact of these efforts, the results have been encouraging: Submissions increased by 36%, from 249 in 2021 to 339 in 2024. The median time to first decision dropped from 24 days in 2021 to 16 days in 2024. Median peer review time reduced from 27 to 14 days during the same period. We are particularly proud of launching the “Research series” section in the journal. The major aim of this section was to provide readers with an update on best practices in scientific writing and publication. Under this section, we published two paired articles in every issue – one on scientific writing and the other on best publication practices. In the series on scientific writing, topics ranged from “How to write case reports and case series”[3] to “How to write a systematic review with meta-analysis.”[4] All these articles provided practical guidance on writing different types of manuscripts. Care was taken to publish less commonly discussed, yet important, topics; for example, this issue contains an excellent resource on the importance of precision writing in scientific manuscripts. Similarly, in the series on best publication practices, we addressed a wide range of topics at every step in the publication cycle, such as “How to select a journal for publication,”[5] “How to handle a manuscript rejection,”[6] “How to revise and resubmit after peer review,”[7] and also less common, yet relevant topics such as “How to promote your research work after publication.”[8] This issue carries a timely and interesting article on the promises and pitfalls of preprint publication, an emerging area that remains poorly understood by many researchers. All articles in the “research series” section were authored by highly accomplished experts and underwent peer review to further improve intellectual rigor. Our aim was to provide simple, succinct guidance on the topic even to novice researchers. That three of the journal’s five most-read articles now come from the Research Series section attests to its relevance and utility. We remain grateful to all authors who contributed so generously to this series. Upon reflection, my biggest disappointment during my tenure remains our inability to secure journal indexation in a major database. We submitted what we believed was a strong application for Scopus but were rejected. Ongoing challenges include attracting novel and impactful original research, strengthening the reviewer pool for better efficiency and turnaround times, and identifying specialty section editors to cover the full range of journal submissions. These steps, in turn, will help in the journey toward indexation and ensure better journal visibility and impact in the long run. These issues will have to be considered and suitably addressed by the incoming editorial team as they prepare for a future reapplication. Notwithstanding the above setbacks, it has been an extraordinary honor to serve as the editor of IJAMHR, a journey that has been an unparalleled learning experience. I sincerely thank the executive editor, editor-in-chief, and all editorial board members, particularly the deputy and associate editors with whom I worked very closely, for their support during my tenure. I also gratefully acknowledge the support of our publisher, Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, in facilitating the timely implementation of all our initiatives and helping us bring out all journal issues ahead of time; a record that we are especially proud of. Finally, I thank the journal readership for their continued interest and support; keep those letters coming in, as it helps us stay on our toes! Much has been done, but much remains to be done. I wish the incoming editor and his team all success as they try their hand at separating the wheat from the chaff! Long live IJAMHR!