Editorial

This is not the story of Brain, a journal of neurology founded in 1878 by (Sir) John Bucknill (1817–97), (Sir) James Crichton-Browne (1840–1938), (Sir) David Ferrier (1843–1928) and John Hughlings Jackson (1835–1911). Several aspects of that history have been rehearsed in this column in recent years and a fuller account will follow in due course. That the story of Brain might one day be written was first discussed at the Annual General Meeting of the Guarantors held on 1 February 1927. (Sir) James Purves Stewart (1869–1949) minuted that (Sir) Gordon Holmes (1876–1965) had agreed to write a history of the journal and its relationship to neurology, for Volume 50. On 23 January 1928, the committee of management proposed that Ferrier and Crichton-Browne should contribute to this history and provide photographs of the founders. But in the event, the text, which would surely have provided insights and details now lost to posterity, never materialized. Sadly, the archive of the journal is disappointingly barren. There exist two manuscript notebooks that record the minutes of meetings of the committee of management and the Annual General Meetings, from 1906, with some record of the finances; and there are files that retain correspondence and documents relating to a few subsequent events and various publishing ventures. But much that would now inform transition from the West Riding Lunatic Asylum Medical Reports and activities of the Neurological Society of London (later the United Kingdom) is evidently now lost. Rather, what follows is a record of activities over the last 10 years, anticipating the arrival of a new editorial team in January 2014, led by Dimitri Kullmann who has already served as Honorary Secretary and Treasurer to the Guarantors (2003–8) and Associate Editor (2004–13). He will be assisted by David Brooks (London and Aarhus), Paul Fletcher (Cambridge), Peter Goadsby (London), Masud Husain (Oxford), Catherine Lubetzki (Paris), James Rowe (Cambridge), Andrew Singleton (Bethesda), Maria Grazia Spillantini (Cambridge) and Mathew Walker (London). We inherited a journal that had appeared quarterly from 1878–1986, six times each year until 1997, and monthly thereafter; and which—under the guidance of John Newsom Davis (1932–2007)—had been early to embrace electronic methods of management and publishing. On arrival, in August 2004, the intention was for Brain to remain ‘the repository of knowledge on the scientific basis of neurology set in its historical and cultural context’. The subsequent work has been discharged by an editorial team based in Cambridge [Joanne Bell (Scientific Editor, 2008–13); Polly Compston (Acting Editorial Assistant, 2009–10); Emily Cottam (Acting Managing Editor, 2009)]; Lisa Edwards (Editorial Assistant, 2004–07); Annemarie North (Scientific Editor, 2010–13); and Eleanor Riches (Managing Editor, 2004–13); staff from Oxford University Press [especially Phil Bishop (Publisher, 2007–13); and Siobhan Fogarty (Production Editor, 2008–13)]; and the Associate Editors [Anders Björkland (2004–06); David Brooks (2012–13); Patrick Chinnery (2004–13); Christian Elger (2004–08), Mark Hallett (Associate Editor, 2006–11), Argye Hillis (2008–13), John Hodges (2004–07), Dimitri Kullmann (2004–13), Geraint Rees (2007–13); Jan van Gijn (2004–13); and Angela Vincent (2004–13)]. A journal may be judged by bibliometric statistics; by how much are read in print or online the contents in different categories; by its wealth creation; and by the perception of its usefulness to the readership. In turn, these data encourage submission of high quality papers that maintain and enhance its reputation. The impact factor for Brain was 8.201 in 2004; it had risen modestly to 9.915 (with a 5-year impact factor of 10.870) by 2013. Online access of the journal has been evaluated in recent years; at the most recent census, downloads of articles in HyperText Markup Language (html: we have always taken a stance on abbreviations) or Portable Document Format (pdf) were >225 000 per month. These and many other statistics are set out in editorials for the February issue of each year since 2009. Although papers are placed online as soon as production is complete, throughout the current editorial tenure the motivation has been to produce a monthly print issue that is intellectually and visually attractive, aiming for balance and diversity with a narrative that runs through the contents. Modest changes were made to the structures we inherited; and the design and format of the journal were updated periodically with full colour throughout, available free to authors, from the start of Volume 130 in January 2007. Activity increased, nearly 3-fold, from August 2004 to end-2013. It follows that since the number of acceptances remained steady—varying from 200 to 281 per annum—and the page budget did not alter materially, the rejection rate increased markedly across that period. Taking whole year statistics, the number of manuscripts that were rejected after review was steady at ∼775 (ranging from 722 to 864 per annum) whereas the number of papers rejected on the advice of an associate editor without external review increased each year from 204 (2005) to 935 (2012). It follows that the total number of rejected manuscripts rose from 1068 (2005) to 1733 (2012) even though the overall rejection rate only increased very slightly (81% in 2005; to 87% in 2012). Sadly, as editorial rejections increased, the prospect that a paper selected for review would subsequently be accepted remained steady at 23% (2005) and 26% (2012). In short, we got more but published the same amount and therefore rejected an increasing number of submissions without troubling the reviewers. Brain has now to consider whether an 87% rejection rate, or higher, is sustainable and represents a valuable dividend on the time spent by authors, editors and reviewers in dealing with manuscripts or whether some means of accommodating the many excellent papers that are necessarily turned away should be adopted without becoming another online journal sporting a vast and somewhat unpatrolled list of e-contents. The increase in activity has clear demographic trends which interact with these statistics. Some nations will not be encouraged. During the tenure of the present editorial team, of the 2717 papers that were accepted, the top 10 for publication (by nation of corresponding author) was UK (22.2%) USA (21.6%), Germany (11.4%), France (7.4%), Italy (5.9%), The Netherlands (5.1%), Canada (4.6%), Australia (3.8%), Switzerland (2.5%) and Japan (2.1%). Of the 13 176 papers that were rejected, the top 10 for exclusion from the journal (by nation of corresponding author) was USA (20.8%), Germany (10.8%), UK (10.2%), Italy (7.6%), France (6.1%), Canada (5.0%), The Netherlands (4.9%), China (4.8%), Australia (3.8%), and Spain (2.9%). Clearly these figures do not account for the volume of submissions by nation. Taking individual strike rates for nations submitting >500 papers over this period, the top 10 for success and failure were USA (3328 submissions: 18% and 82%, respectively), UK (1953 submissions: 31% and 69%, respectively), Germany (1734 submissions: 18% and 82%, respectively), Italy (1160 submissions: 14% and 86%, respectively), France (1006 submissions: 20% and 80%, respectively), Canada (786 submissions: 16% and 84%, respectively), The Netherlands (784 submissions: 18% and 82%, respectively), China (657 submissions: 4% and 96%, respectively), Australia (602 submissions: 17% and 83%, respectively) and Japan (572 submissions: 10% and 90%, respectively). Individual subjects fared well or badly at the hawkish and dove-like hands of our associate editors. Their decision-making was consistent over time and is well represented by statistics for the last full year: David Brooks (movement disorders; 15% acceptance and handling 12% of all submissions); Patrick Chinnery (neurogenetics; 21% acceptance on 10% of all submissions); Alastair Compston (multiple sclerosis, and all miscellaneous subjects; 10% acceptance on 29% of all submissions); Argye Hillis (behavioural neurology; 21% acceptance on 9% of all submissions); Dimitri Kullmann (epilepsy; 11% acceptance on 12% of all submissions); Geraint Rees (cerebral function and neuropsychiatry; 13% acceptance on 8% of all submissions); Jan van Gijn (stroke and peripheral nerve disease; 7% acceptance on 11% of all submissions); and Angela Vincent (neuroimmunology; 10% acceptance on 9% of all submissions). Ex-associate editors were somewhat more lenient in their day: Anders Björklund (acceptance rate 16%); Christian Elger (16%); Mark Hallett (16%); and John Hodges (18%). Brain never closes other than downtime on Manuscript Central; and papers arrive from all over the globe around the clock, at weekends and on all public holidays. Our busy seasons map inversely onto those of authors with increased activity during August and at Christmas when, presumably, authors like to clear their desks before taking a break. Including manuscripts submitted in revision, we received 119 book reviews, 410 letters to the editor, 234 occasional papers, 19 715 original articles and 679 reviews—a total (including the two editorials in each issue) of 21 537 submissions between 1 August 2004 and 31 December 2013 (estimated). After taking editorial decisions, the 113 print issues were made up of 32 768 pages containing 153 scientific commentaries, 113 editorials, 113 pieces ‘From the Archives’ describing 193 previous publications in the journal, 114 review articles, 2381 original articles, 76 occasional papers, 118 book essays based on 185 separate publications, and online access to 249 letters to the editor. At the outset, we decided to alter the front cover, initially changing the small reproduction of a figure reproduced faithfully from one of the contents to a larger format (from January to May 2005); and then introducing a more composite appearance with a design built from multiple images taken from a single article. We resisted the easy option of coloured brains based on imaging studies, and leaned increasingly on people and historical material. Probably that trend in visual display went too far but we hoped that some covers did tell a story in pictures that caught the eye and added value to the paper of origin; and we have seen Brain covers reproduced in lectures and prominent when searching selected people or subjects on Google images. We encouraged authors to submit suggestions as covers and received some images; but with rare exceptions (see for example, August 2013), these were seldom used. Designed by amateurs and often overly busy, no doubt these covers will seem dated before long; but they provide a record of visual design within the editorial office over the period 2004–13. We have included at least one scientific commentary in each issue, as had our immediate predecessor. These proved challenging in so far as the decision which paper to highlight always came late and only after the contents had been finalized making it necessary to invite at short notice and with a very tight deadline for submission. Almost without exception, authors—often chosen from reviewers of the paper in question who already had a good working knowledge of its contents and may have indicated preparedness to write a commentary in their report—delivered on time. Occasionally we strayed outside the scientific community: for example, on linguistic analysis of the writings of Iris Murdoch (1919–99) by the writer A.N. Wilson (Brain 2005; 128: 237–8); and review of the play Duet for One, by John Cornwell (Brain 2009; 132: 1124–5). We aimed to publish one review article in each issue. With only two exceptions, these were submitted, not invited, and although stocks were occasionally low, or we chose not to include a review for other reasons, mostly these were in excess resulting in longer delays to print than for other articles although online access made the manuscripts available to readers within a reasonably short time of acceptance. The intention was to provide scholarly and comprehensive accounts of a topic of contemporary interest with new formulations written by experts in the field. We did not court impact factor in making these selections and although some have been highly cited, overall reviews appear neither to have advantaged nor handicapped Brain on that particular statistic over the last 10 years. The bulk of the journal has been made up of original articles. At the outset, we anticipated that these would fall into several discrete categories and the associate editors were selected on that basis. That assessment generally proved accurate and the majority of papers have been on predictable topics: movements disorders and neurodegeneration; neurogenetics; Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias; epilepsy; cerebral function and neuropsychiatry; stroke; multiple sclerosis; neuroimmunology; brain and spinal cord injury; and peripheral nerve and muscle—with a smattering of papers on miscellaneous topics not covered by these broad categories. We have observed many trends in submission as new methods were introduced and applied to specific diseases; and have seen how often one paper attracts another on the same subject as authors sense a semi-open door on a particular topic. With a journal that aspires to definitive papers of lasting value, over time we had often to disappoint authors whose work was based on single case studies, meta-analysis, systematic review or normal physiology; those considered confirmatory or incremental; and work judged to be descriptive without insights into disease mechanisms. More generally, studies that a single fared well than those that came at a from different and We have been on taking the that with for from of are the number of papers based on in we within some at least of the were in the disease of issues after the data or their or the of new that to the original published letters to the editor, online but not in after an and from the corresponding of the article that the In papers for we much on and these to be and and to of their and handling more than one manuscript at a time. Our we for the journal and an interest in its During the tenure of the present editorial team, we selected of agreed to and received 23 reviews with a time to provide the of Taking that statistic into account and that several are from submission to and of and decisions, and other time to a first decision from when we to in the last and time to editorial which several from to with staff who be available to editorial there is no these should not We introduced a of occasional papers in to submissions that did not the editorial for original articles. This acceptance of some studies and more pieces that but without the many excellent papers on these topics that might have been submitted as original articles. and as our occasional papers more historical in We sense that these have been well received even occasionally with as the of a new in by from written by and and (Brain 2009; 132: all are written by for an on the of (Sir) by the John (Brain We included essays on Peter Brain Brain and John Brain who between and Brain has a of book the late that this was all read in 2004, we a single book in each issue in which the was to write a account of a subject by the of one or more review but outside the of those publications and at than had been the for book reviews in in the of a article in the or of had been the submission rate was high and many were often by people whose outside There have been several and and neurology, and the history and of as they to Several authors have to John Cornwell in six each from John and Jan van a from and and many of not the how Brain Brain 2009; 132: of a Brain and of Brain 2009; 132: A good of our would be the in the current issue in history in the of and of Cambridge of other book on of (see page that it might challenging to the decision was taken to include a ‘From the Archives’ in each issue. The was to an historical to an article in each issue in to how a particular subject had from its original or some other The intention was not to the papers, although many were but to for or material. the editor time from held the that to neurology, read issues of We and from August 2004, the has 193 previous publications in Brain in the case of the six of to the of the published at one time by the Guarantors of Brain (see Brain The was to a paper in the current issue, its for a paper in Brain, the of that paper for a in Brain, and so until with of the online archive from these and more editor on a set of the journal and access to the print soon which from a number of papers would that the The of an figure or was always an added With some topics on which we publish in of on which to even after 10 years, the papers published in Brain from 1878 would this column to maintain activity for many years to there are for some of this of the The decision to write a monthly editorial was taken with in of These were never to contemporary topics or to be At first the was to to the contents of the issue by the book and to the papers at the of the editorial with the article that of for the This soon a with that from the current contents of the journal was in an historical when to a for the editorial was always provided from within a good working or from the some and in the history of neurology made their In the from to lectures at the and Neurological one on the history of Brain, made it necessary to read the as it making on and many other aspects of the This provided a for subsequent With the overall to the history of often to articles selected for the are and it has been periodically to on the editorials in Brain over the last 10 years. The most and has been and have made from each It that so many of all and appear to the history of our since 2004, at the of Oxford University we have an issue of the journal for at meetings than out the most recent issue of These two one from each of our current categories and one paper selected by each associate editor. the and these an of what the editorial team most from the much and published by the journal over this period. the outset, we aimed to all correspondence and in of taken on each We in which free was always The associate editors were in to their letters so that correspondence had one narrative We to is that paper the from one that was not in our that we had we or a on for a There is no doubt that a to encourage and we a in over time that was as as it was Almost these to the this to be a for the and to the many and that in the of often essays in their occasionally and always for and editor in the original these never led to publication of that article. But there were some and this increased to the current rate of several each It that other the same but the of as a for out the most That has not been our and the of the editorial and an small dividend for We many and and the of several papers in which was or data by to the With the more of these it soon clear that Brain was caught in the of and in which and or other were in front of the editorial But in the it was not necessary to on of article published during the last 10 years, although one was by the authors after In dealing with these more aspects of a journal, it clear that publishing is an not an and in the has its A no longer and an for the that as editor of Brain is the in UK He was The to as for a journal that has the of knowledge in our subject over the last years; the with contemporary to of the and for across the of brain disease through and the diversity of interest that in a the of the brain in and disease are applied to of and the with of only a very few are by in this have been a of much the pages of the last 113 issues many clear of spent with and to all for to do this work over the last 10 years.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.