A recent analysis of Essential Science
Indicators data shows that the journal Cell
Cycle has achieved the highest percent increase in
total citations for the field of Molecular Biology
& Genetics for the period of July-August 2007.
Cell Cycle’s current record includes
1,490 papers cited a total of 6,228 times. In the
interview below, we talk with the journal’s
Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Mikhail Blagosklonny, about
Cell Cycle’s history and citation
achievements.
Did you expect Cell Cycle to become
highly cited, or is this surprising to you?
I expected that Cell Cycle would become highly cited. The
Editorial Board includes the most prominent scientists in biology and a
high proportion of our papers are written by the most-cited authors
(according to Thomson Scientific).
How would you account for the high citation rate
of Cell Cycle?
The high citation rate is due to our excellent authors. Authors (not
reviewers, as commonly assumed) determine the quality of any journal.
Editors should not rubber-stamp reviewer’s decisions (otherwise,
sometimes the best and most original papers will be rejected). Actually,
reviewers should not decide at all whether a paper should be published or
not. Reviewers provide criticism and reveal mistakes but should not decide
a paper’s fate.
"The main significance [to the
field] is the journal’s multidisciplinary
approach and flexible forms of scientific presentation,
such as a blend of research articles and review papers,
including re-interpretations of published
experiments."
I read all submitted papers before sending them for review. Some of them
can be declined on priority grounds thus saving authors and reviewers time
and effort. For the most competitive papers, an ultra-rapid review (by
members of the Editorial Board) is necessary to publish them a few days
after submission. Some of such priority papers are published simultaneously
with similar papers in Nature and Cell. We invite authors
to submit papers rejected from Nature, Cell, and
Science with reviewers’ comments. Several "rejected by other
journals" papers have become real hits.
Would you give us a brief history of the
journal?
Cell Cycle was started in 2002 as a small journal (one "thin"
issue every two months). It was one of the first two journals published by
Landes Bioscience, a small publisher at that time. In the beginning, before
the journal was accepted for indexing by PubMed, the task was not easy. The
journal succeeded due to the enthusiasm and optimism of Ron Landes (the
Publisher), Kim Mitchell (the journal director) and members of the
Editorial Board.
The journal has become widely known, partly due to "Extra Views," a new
rubric that allows authors of the most exciting recent papers to add
something that was not allowed in the original paper and to put the work in
a broader perspective. Now Cell Cycle is a multidisciplinary
biweekly (twice a month) journal. It covers all fields in biology and is
first of all cell cycle research. So, the journal is a success story for
both the publishers and the editors.
What historical factors have contributed to the
success of Cell Cycle?
Just when the first issue was in preparation, one of the members of the
Editorial Board, Sir Paul Nurse, won the Nobel Prize on cell cycle
research. So the launch of the first issue coincided with the Nobel Prize
to the study of the "cell cycle."
What, in your view, is this journal’s main
significance or contribution in the field of Molecular Biology &
Genetics?
The main significance is the journal’s
multidisciplinary approach and flexible forms of scientific presentation,
such as a blend of research articles and review papers, including
re-interpretations of published experiments.
Also, Cell Cycle has published groundbreaking discoveries. In
2007, for instance:
Tarasov et al., "Differential regulation of microRNAs by p53
revealed by massively parallel sequencing: miR-34a is a p53 target that
induces apoptosis and G1-arrest," Cell Cycle 6: 1586-93, 2007.
Edward T. Petri, Alessia Errico, Lourdes Escobedo, Tim Hunt and Ravi
Basavappa, "The crystal structure of human cyclin B," Cell Cycle
6: 1342-49, 2007.
How do you see your field(s) evolving in the next
few years?
I expect progress in the fields of microRNA in cell cycle, growth-promoting
signaling pathways (such as mTOR) in development and aging, regulation of
mitotic progression and mitotic exit, and translation of basic science in
new therapeutics targeting the cell cycle.
What role do you see for your
journal?
I expect that forthcoming discoveries will be published in Cell
Cycle with minimal delays so as to be available to other scientists
immediately.
Did you expect Cell Cycle to become
highly cited, or is this surprising to you?
