Human Reproduction Update 2007 13(1):1-3; doi:10.1093/humupd/dml059
© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Building on solid foundations: the third Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Update takes office
B.C.J.M. Fauser and
J. Collins
We wish to announce that the end of 2006 marks the second and last term of Bart Fauser as Editor-in-Chief and that as of this issue, after a careful and transparent appointment procedure, John Collins takes office as his successor. This shift of editors seems like the right time to evaluate changes over the last 6 years and to reflect on where the journal currently stands.
Human Reproduction Update was initiated by Professor Bob Edwards
in 1995 as the third European Society of Human Reproduction
and Embryology (ESHRE) journal. Professor Edwards has been the
first Editor-in-Chief until 2000. Since the very beginning,
publishing review papers has been the focus of this bimonthly
journal. Various topics were usually covered in a series of
related papers, published together as a symposium. A volume
could be based on presentations held during a previous scientific
meeting. This approach of publishing a series of related papers
on a given topic is currently still known in our field in series
such as
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology,
Best Practice in Obstetrics and Gynecology or
Seminars in Reproductive Medicine.
Since 2001, this policy has changed. The intention has been to broaden the scope of the journal covering all areas of the wide scope of Reproductive Medicine and to publish stand-alone, comprehensive papers covering a well-defined topic (Tables I and II). This could vary from molecular basic science to reproductive physiology to systematic reviews of clinical trials including areas such as andrology, contraception, menopause and hormone replacement, next to infertility and IVF. The number of papers published per issue has been reduced to 7–10, and a strict format per paper was defined, rendering the journal more reader-friendly. Associate Editors (AEs) were recruited covering specific areas for the journal. Over the years, around two of three papers have been invited by the AEs, the mean review time has been significantly reduced and the overall acceptance rate has been 
60% (70% for invited and 45% for uninvited manuscripts) (Figure 1). Gradually, the number of papers published in areas such as andrology, gametes/embryology, contraception, ageing, genetic and molecular reproduction has increased and currently outweighs clinical and reproductive physiology and medicine papers (Figure 2). We are very pleased with these results, and we sincerely thank the AEs and reviewers for all their efforts in rendering this a serious peer-reviewed journal.
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
|
Figure 2. HRU published papers 2003–06. And, andrology; CH, contraception, ageing and hormone replacement; CR, clinical reproduction; GE, gametes/embryology; MR, molecular reproduction; RG, reproductive genetics; RM, reproductive medicine.
|
|
Since 2001, the journal has been the number 1 impact factor
journal in the field Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Indeed, as
often mentioned, the impact factor of review journals is usually
high because good reviews are cited frequently. An international
journal with a comparable focus on reviews does not exist in
the field of Human Reproduction. The two major journals with
a comparable scope in the related field of ‘Endocrinology
and Metabolism’ (
Endocrine Reviews and
Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism) indeed also present with high impact factors.
Over the years, however, the changes in
Human Reproduction Update have been associated with a continued rise in impact factor
from 2.97 in 2001 to 5.45 in 2005 (Figure
3). Such a figure
indicates how often papers published in the preceding 2 years
are actually cited in all registered journals in that given
year. Hence, the 2005 impact factor is based on the observation
that overall the 45 papers published in
Human Reproduction Update in 2003 were cited 268 times in 2005, and the 44 papers from
2004 were cited 217 times in 2005 (485 citations for 89 papers,
5.45 citations per paper on average). In reality, half of the
published papers are poorly cited and half very well cited and
distinguishing between these conditions presents an ongoing
puzzle for editors.
A personal search on the Web of Science shows that the top 10
most cited papers from the last five are almost exclusively
from the year 2001 (Table
III). More time since its publications
allows for more citations, which seems especially true for review
papers. Indeed, the most frequently cited paper from our journal
is published in its first year (as indicated in Table
III).
Another way of assessing the interest of readers in papers published
in the journal is the identification of the number of pdf downloads
from the journal website. The top 10 list is summarized in Table
IV. The reader may note the broad mix of topics with andrology
and reproductive medicine well represented in both lists and
that none of the clinical papers concern IVF. It seems that
we currently have a nice balance between clinical and more basic
science or molecular-oriented papers. We truly feel that this
mixture is unique to the journal and may explain its success.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table III. Top 10 of most cited papers published in Human Reproduction Update (HRU) 2001–05 (Web of Science, search performed 5 November 2006)
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table IV. Top 10 full text PDF downloads from Human Reproduction Update (HRU) website (between November 2005 and October 2006)
|
|
Personal note from John Collins: It is an honour to follow two
excellent editors of
Human Reproduction Update. The journal
will continue to build upon its present excellence and explore
opportunities to improve its scientific coverage and interest
to readers.
Personal note from Bart Fauser: Success is a joint effort, and I would like thank all AEs, reviewers, authors and the editorial office. It has been an immense challenge and pleasure working with you all and serving our readership. Thank you so much for your interest. I wish the journal a bright future!
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
M. D. Ruopp, B. W. Whitcomb, and E. F. Schisterman
Is it time for a meta-analysis?
Hum. Reprod. Update,
May 1, 2008;
14(3):
289 - 289.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
