Like a snail, our journal (JDI) makes slow, but steady, progress.

As the Journal of Diabetes Investigation (JDI) was launched as the official journal of the Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD) in 20101, it will enter its 7th year of publication in 2016. It has also been almost 2 years since our journal became an Open Access journal in 20142, 3. As the background of our shift to an Open Access journal was mentioned in my previous Editorial in JDI in 20153, I won't repeat its history. It has been a short‐term experience, but our efforts seem to have been a success for the following reasons. After the first printed issue of JDI in 20101, the first impact factor was released with the evaluation of 1.881 in 20112, 3. Then, the impact factors in 2012, 2013, and 2014 were 1.770, 1.496 and 1.825, respectively. The number of citations in other journals and downloads of the articles that appeared in our journal grew steadily after the shift to an Open Access journal. In the case of downloads, as shown in Figure 1, the number markedly increased after the shift to an Open Access journal. As the data in 2015 are up to September, it is as clear as day that the total number of downloads could increase by approximately 30% by the end of 2015. In addition, JDI was accepted for inclusion in MEDLINE/PubMed in October 2015. Furthermore, it is a great pleasure for us to know that some articles in our journal were reported on famous global websites, such as “DiabetesPro SmartBrief” by the American Diabetes Association, just 2 weeks after their acceptance. All this evidence suggests that, like a snail, JDI is making slow, but steady, progress. As the disadvantage, there are the letters to inform us of the withdrawal of manuscripts by authors during review or after acceptance. The reasons come from the expensive charge for article publication. As one of its causes, the information including the expensive charge for article publication after the shift to an Open Access journal is not widespread throughout the whole world. It cannot be helped, because it has been a short time since becoming an Open Access journal. We are very sorry about this. However, this problem has resolved as time has passed.

Figure 1

In the case of our journal, the Journal of Diabetes Investigation (JDI), the change in the number of downloads before (2012 and 2013) and after (2014 and 2015) the shift to an Open Access journal. The bar graph with the blank in 2015 shows the value of downloads as expected during the 3 months from October to December 2015. It is expected that the number of downloads will increase by approximately 30% during the last 3 months of 2015.

Recently, two interesting articles for researchers were published in the journals, Cell Metabolism 4 and Nature 5. I would like to discuss the current situation of JDI based on what was discussed in these two articles. Their information seems to be important for all researchers to keep in mind. At Cell Metabolism 4, readers and potential authors are informed, “We emphasize having a detailed experimental section in our papers so that anybody reading the paper can rigorously assess how the experiments were conducted and have enough information at hand to repeat the experiment”. Then, the writers emphasize the following point: “We and reviewers examine the figures during editorial and peer review and, if need be, requested raw data from authors. We strongly encourage our authors to streamline the Results section so that only key information is included in the figures, which makes it easier to evaluate. We also take a close look at statistical analyses.” Although these basic measures are not always unique to Cell Metabolism 4, it might be hard for every journal to put them into practice, but we must endeavor as thoroughly as possible from the viewpoint of both the maintenance of high quality for the journal and the education of researchers, contributing to the development of science, including diabetology. When we look at our journal in its infancy at the present time, there are so many elementary problems in the articles being submitted for publication. The most common reasons for rejection for publication come from the following silly things. In addition to no detailed description in Methodology and lack of proper Analyses mentioned in Cell Metabolism 4, the major criticisms by reviewers of our journal are as follows: poor study design (i.e., no control group, short‐term observation etc.); small sample size for the purpose of study; no certification of ethnic community; insufficient explanation of the results in the Discussion; discrepancy between purpose and conclusion; difficulty in finding a novelty; beyond the scope of our journal, and so on. Whenever there are interesting manuscripts with a new view among the papers evaluated for rejection, I recommend the authors change their articles to a Short Paper or Letter to the Editor from full Original Articles. Also, some authors are advised to reconstruct the manuscript completely and submit it again as a new manuscript to JDI. In each of these situations, it is the rule that I discuss the matter with the Associate Editor in charge of the case and then make a decision. I am sure that our approach of revising a manuscript to a new structure and text based on reviewers’ comments will help to disseminate new ideas and observations, and it will make it easier for readers to understand the ideas and observations. It will also be beneficial to authors (especially young authors) to learn how to write a manuscript correctly. There are such fundamental errors in some manuscripts being contributed to our journal, because the journal is still young and developing. Therefore, as Editor‐in‐Chief, I read over all manuscripts evaluated for rejection myself, and read through the comments raised by reviewers. Then, I add some comments to the authors about my impressions, contributing to the authors providing and/or brushing up a new manuscript in the future. It is hard work for me, because the acceptance rate of our journal is only about 24% among approximately 400 articles per year that are submitted for publication. However, it is enjoyable.

Under the title of “Team Science” in the recent issue of Nature 5, it is reported that, “Interdisciplinarity has become all the rage as scientists tackle society's biggest problems. But there is still strong resistance to crossing borders.” Furthermore, it is written, “As an academic movement, interdisciplinarity caught on during the 1970s and has been growing ever since.” It is true that scientists need to collaborate with people in different areas to establish both good fundamental or clinical work to keep up with the remarkable progress of science. Although it depends on the circumstances, the reasons come from the necessities of wide and deep knowledge, fine skillful techniques, expensive equipment, large sample size, and so on. These phenomena are the same problems in the field of diabetology. However, when research was a collaborative work by a number of different institutions and researchers, the question of “who will be the corresponding author” arises, and is troublesome in some cases. In the case of our new journal, the number of articles submitted with multiple corresponding authors has recently increased. However, I regret that the reliability is doubtful in some cases. In cases with unclear reasons, these submissions to our journal are not accepted. It seems to be a common abuse of collaborative research. Thus, in new journals, it is necessary for the editor to check the application by authors before allowing the manuscripts into the regular reviewing system, keeping a high quality of publications and correcting the attitude of researchers. There are so many handicaps for new journals that we must overcome. All of them are an education for promising scientists.

“Othello” is one of the famous tragedies among the literary plays by William Shakespeare (1564–1616). The following excerpt is by Iago (Act I, Scene III): “Our bodies are our gardens, to the which our wills are gardeners.” On reconsidering the matter of JDI, “Our journal (JDI) is our gardens, to the which our editors and reviewers are gardeners.” Thus, I really hope all editors and reviewers for JDI will keep this in mind. The mission of the JDI Editor, Editorial Board and reviewers is to show care for the journal, which is still new and developing, and to support younger researchers with the same care.

Disclosure

The author declares no conflict of interest.