Another Editorial on Editorials
Markus K. Heinemann
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1782622
2024-04-03
The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon
Abstract:I have been writing Editorials in this journal for 14 years now, the little fellows amounting to the amazing number of 112, if I calculated correctly. After having taken over the editorship in 2010, the original idea was to comment on something that was part of the respective issue, be it a general topic or a specific contribution. This soon gave way to the occasional ramification dealing with a spontaneous thought or experience—the report on our travels through Assynt, for instance.[1] An initial feeling of unease if something like this did belong into a scientific medical journal was attenuated by unsolicited positive and encouraging feedback by numerous readers. Over time, growing insight into the mechanisms of publishing and extended networking with editorial colleagues made me realize that the Editorial as such has been scientifically analyzed. Was I doing the right thing? A very comprehensive and insightful analysis was published by Peh and Ng in 2010.[2] They list the common purposes of an editorial: Personal message from the editor to journal readers. Commentary on a published article in the same issue. Concise review on a topic of current interest (not warranting a full invited review). Drawing readers' attention to very recent developments or innovations. Commentary on nonscientific topics, for example, health policy, economics, law, or ethics .[2] Their Summary very nicely puts it all in a nutshell[2]: Although originally a means to deliver the editor's message, editorials have evolved to fulfil various purposes. As there is typically a limited space in which to deliver its contents, the message contained in the editorial needs to be well thought out and concisely delivered. It should contain the correct sequence of the elements of critical argument, ideally supported by evidence, with a clear conclusion. The venerable British Journal of Anaesthesia gives sound advice on how to write an Editorial, focusing on its practice of invited ones accompanying and commenting papers published in the journal.[3] There I learnt that you can even win a Pulitzer Prize for such efforts.[4] The prevailing practice regarding the purpose of Editorials is definitely that of opinion pieces related to a current paper, but, as shown, there are others. Independent of their focus, the most critical point seems to be the lack of peer review, which may allow placement of ideas that otherwise would not have made it into the journal. In a healthy scientific community, this will not go unnoticed or uncommented and stir an open discussion.[5] [6] [7] A critical evaluation of any Editorial by the reader is essential. "Opinions," as one says today on social media, are after all "my own." Interestingly, this special genre of academic writing with a definitive potential to influence the community seems to be utilized only rather sporadically by most journals.[8] In her in-depth analysis trying to answer the question "How do editors use editorials to lead their journals?" Maria Plakhotnik states that " Editorials represent a platform for editors to directly communicate with their readers and shape a unique character of the journal ."[8] I could not agree more. Editorials are highly personal. No wonder that their authors may undergo scrutiny. Phyllis Noerager Stern was the Editor-in-Chief of Health Care for Women International from 1983 to 2001. She wrote distinctly idiosyncratic Editorials, which became the subject of a detailed analysis.[9] Aside from medical topics, she was very outspoken about cultural issues and women's rights. This earned her the title of a " Living Legend " of the American Academy of Nursing in 2008. Thomas describes her as " irreverent, droll, and even a bit risqué at times ."[9] "Sounds familiar," I thought when reading this characterization. Stern wrote about how it feels to break a rib,[10] or getting health care in Thailand,[11] gave advice on how to publish or edit medical papers,[12] [13] mourned the murder of her beloved car "Pearly May" by an SUV,[14] and vividly described her cultural experience during a sea cruise to Alaska.[15] The wording of the titles alone! Finally, it looked like I had found a soulmate. Trying to establish contact, I found out that, unfortunately, Phyllis Stern had died in 2014 at 88 years of age. Just by reading her editorials, however, you gain an impression of this Editor as a living person, and, in this case, of someone I would have loved to meet. Reflecting my own practice, this implies that readers of my Editorials who do not know me in person either would possibly like to do so, or would rather not touch me -Abstract Truncated-
surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems,respiratory system