Editorials are not a regular feature of Human Reproduction but the first change of Editor-in-Chief in the history of the Journal is an appropriate occasion. From its inception in 1985, Bob Edwards nurtured and developed first Human Reproduction and more recently its sister journals, Molecular Human Reproduction and Human Reproduction Update to be successful and important journals in their field. I have the remit to carry Human Reproduction forward and Richard Ivell and Bart Fauser have responsibility for the others. The journals may be owned by the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) but they serve a wider community of readers. We intend to work collaboratively to ensure that the three journals serve the Reproductive Biology and Reproductive Medicine Communities worldwide.
|
I would like to think that the reader will not notice major changes in the journal with the change of Editor-in-Chief since it has a successful format appreciated by the many readers who have communicated with me since my Editorship was announced. The strength of Human Reproduction lies in its combination of basic reproductive science and clinical reproductive medicine and we welcome relevant submissions of quality work across the scope of the journal. One area where I have re-defined policy is in order to clarify the clinical scope of the journal. The relationship of the journal to the ESHRE community broadly defines the scope of Human Reproduction. In terms of clinical papers this equates loosely to what we would all recognize as the specialty/sub-specialty of Reproductive Medicine. Any working definition sees this as distinct from Obstetrics/Fetomaternal Medicine and from Gynaecological Oncology but papers in both of these areas are now being received by the editorial office and some have been published recently.
I do not believe that Human Reproduction should evolve into a clinical journal across Obstetrics and Gynaecology to mirror the good general journals which already carry that remit. As a result I recently revised the published scope of the journal appropriately. The boundary between reproductive medicine and obstetrics/fetomaternal medicine is elastic, since they intersect somewhere round about the end of the first trimester of pregnancy. Many early pregnancy issues may be within reproductive medicine, including implantation and reproductive failure through miscarriage and pre-implantation diagnosis, which inevitably involves assisted reproduction. On the other hand, prenatal diagnosis (even if in the first trimester) and fetal assessment would normally be within obstetrics/fetomaternal medicine as would issues relating to late pregnancy disorders and neonatal events. Papers in these areas are only appropriate for Human Reproduction when they address obstetric or paediatric consequences of management used in reproductive medicine. A similar argument applies to gynaecological oncology submissions. These will only be considered to be appropriate where they relate to cancer risk as a consequence of issues within reproductive medicine such as the use of fertility drugs, contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy. Following this definition of the scope of the journal, we are endeavouring to detect submissions which are outside the scope of Human Reproduction on receipt by the Journal office, not after peer review.
An important development in the Editorial process is the revision of the Editorial structure by the appointment of Associate Editors who will have a role in the co-ordination of the refereeing process within distinct areas of specialism. This should maximize the effectiveness of the editorial mechanisms, an issue of great importance to our authors and potential authors. Within this structure, as Editor-in-Chief, I shall be responsible for the overall process, for the content of each issue and for overall editorial decision-making and priority setting.
Human Reproduction already publishes across a wide range of reproductive medicine topics outside pregnancy including menstrual disorders, endometriosis, reproductive endocrinology, contraception and the menopause, andrology and environmental influences. This reflects the scope of the work reported at ESHRE conferences and I would wish to emphasize that I view pre-reproductive and post-reproductive biology and medicine as relevant to the journal and of interest to our readers. I would also wish to emphasize that I believe that Human Reproduction is an appropriate vehicle for reproductive epidemiology, which can be highly relevant to the community of Human Reproduction readers. This view is supported by the continuing increase in the numbers of papers submitted to the journal.
I intend that if someone in the reproductive field (basic scientist or clinician) was only going to read one journal they would choose Human Reproduction because it provided some of the best research papers in the field and an ongoing perspective on the relevant key issues and controversies. This is a time of unprecedented opportunity in reproductive biology with the emergence of powerful new tools in molecular genetics, cell biology, embryology and endocrinology. The challenges are immense but it is likely that the pages of Human Reproduction will throw light on some of the enigmas in reproduction which remain. The key to publishing in Human Reproduction should be relevance and quality.