Journal entry
10 years of scholarly leadership
An interview with JVIR Editor-in-chief Ziv J Haskal, MD, FSIR, on the conclusion of his historic term
This year, Ziv J Haskal, MD, FSIR, ends his 10-year run as editor-in-chief (EIC) of SIR’s
flagship publication, the Journal of Vascular and
Interventional Radiology (JVIR). IRQ caught up with Dr. Haskal to reflect on his time in important role, why high-quality research is so crucial to the future of IR and what comes next for him.
Why did you initially have an interest in the role of JVIR EIC? I had completed some years as deputy editor-in-chief at CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology (CVIR) managing its North American and Asian submissions. With Dierk Vorwerk, MD, as its editor-in-chief, we doubled its impact factor and made notable changes. The option to join JVIR and work to grow its impact was a natural next step and an extraordinary opportunity.
What are some ways you’ve seen the science of IR evolve? What do you see as the next big horizon for the specialty? I’ve published heat maps and articles about where science has gone over the course of IR, and you can track that in what JVIR covers, and see how new procedures arrive and settle into standard practice. At one point we wrote a lot about fibroid embolization, but those reports waned as it became a mature area. The same with the recurrence of portal hypertension, or the increase in literature about vena cava filters. Because these fields are now mature, a paper on vena cava filters,
28 IRQ | FALL 2020
for example, is going to have to reach a higher bar to bring something new to the field.
Some areas are always fertile. There has been a methodical, consistent and unstoppable increase in oncology literature. I used to publish focus issues purely on oncology, but it began to feel absurd when there is so much oncology content in each issue, as it’s a leading topic in IR. There are always ebbs and flows, and research comes in a cycle as a new wave appears, crests and then breaks as the topics and areas get built out. One part of being an editor is identifying these waves and managing the cycle.
How has research and JVIR changed over the last decade? IR began as—and still is—the coolest specialty in medicine. It focuses on extraordinary things never done before that astonish, and ideally, gradually become routine and mundane, offered to all. Our literature traditionally focused on this first part, with case-by-case and then later, retrospective report-by- report discussions of innovations, new procedures, techniques and singular achievements. This emphasized the “explorer” or “cowboy” nature of IR. But having these procedures settle into the routine is partly due to the hard work of prospective bench and clinical research whose methodical caliber matches— and reads like—the very best journals on the planet.
This has been a central focus of my two terms in the JVIR: defining an expected standard of published journal science that would stand on par with the world’s top journals. I have always believed our
papers should read like NEJM and JAMA, be vetted at the same levels, define the scientific record in IR science and make the IR contribution as meaningful and lasting as possible. JVIR has done this by building an invisible backbone to the journal, utilizing a methodical step- by-step infrastructure of editors with expectations, defined roles and external partnerships that provides consistent and diplomatic service to authors.
Our evolution into creating high-level science that will put us on par with other specialties will depend on the quality of our literature, the respect it garners, and the next generation of scientists it inspires. Over the last 10 years, the standard of submissions and the expectations of authors, reviewers and readers have adapted to that level, and now such standards of quality are expected and even demanded.
What are some of the initiatives you’re proudest of over your time as EIC? I’m proud of so much we achieved. The journal stands tall against all its peers as the unopposed leading IR journal—the standard bearer. Its submissions have nearly tripled, breaking its records year after year. In spite of that, we’ve held to the announced goal of our 30-day average turn-around time to first decision for 10 years. We have rolled out endless features focused on signaling the journal’s broad-tent interest in good science—from policy to economics, diversity and workforce and global perspectives, Letters (where short communications allow quick dissemination of examples and ideas— and provide many IRS their first path to
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40
