In the millennium year 2000 we started as editors-in-chief of the Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology. Enthusiastic, proud and most of all naive. Naive because we did not have a clue what it meant to run a scientific journal. Of course, we had our experiences with writing and publishing papers but neither of us had experience as an editor of an international journal. We only had the warm and honourable invitation of Eylard van Hall, the former Editor-in-Chief and one of the founding fathers of ISPOG, to become his successors. So we started an adventure, relying on a sound tradition of being part of the ISPOG-family. Fortunately, this was not the first adventure we started together as a gynaecologist–psychologist team.
Now, 12 animated years later we look back on what indeed became an adventure. During these enterprising years, we fortunately had a lot of ups and only a few downs.
Probably the most important part of the ups was that we had a number of excellent managing editor assistants in Groningen. Hence, we would like to thank Dorothe Vessies, Ineke Hamming, Sieb Dekker, Astrid Elliott and especially Bettina Hosenfeld, for not only did they do a wonderful job but they were dedicated, loyal and invigorated us with their effort and energy. It felt like true teamwork.
Ups continued when we were able to publish thought-provoking stories about our field of interest. From our position we could see how interesting, refreshing and yet how difficult it is to be “bi-lingual or multi-cultural” in science. What became crystal clear is that we as professionals count on an enormous amount of “tacit knowledge”. On one level we talk about syndromes and symptoms like pain, PMS, anxiety, PND, etc. But, on a deeper level we relate all these explicit facts and knowledge to an enormous personal data base of embodied knowledge. These database include personal experiences, expectations, cultural values, etc. And although the data and results may look the same, their meaning differs because physicians, psychologists, midwives, but also men and women, and old or young colleagues have a different point of reference regarding their personal data base. Hence, each article tells a different story. Although these stories were always interesting on a personal level, they were unfortunately not always appropriate on a professional level and therefore not always suitable for publishing.
Which brings us to the downs. Yes, we realize that we also have disappointed a lot of colleagues and even friends by rejecting their contributions. This, however, was unavoidable, for some years we could only publish less than 30% of all manuscripts. We realized that we were killing “(y)our darlings”, and that hurts. Fortunately, here the ISPOG as a family showed its strength. Although we had some very fundamental scientific discussions, ultimately our professional friendships even deepened through these rudimentary debates. We would therefore like to thank our editorial board and especially all our reviewers for doing a tremendous job in anonymity. Without your abiding support we could not kept the standards of this journal.
Other than ups and downs, we have also experienced our moments of doubt. How would the new managing editing system work out? Was ISPOG as a society able and willing to support our ever growing ambitions and corresponding budget? Was Health Informa able and willing to support our idea of the Journal as a primarily ISPOG-oriented journal? Especially this question worried us as Editors and made our hearts twinge. We never felt that we were serving Health Informa, but only ISPOG. We looked at the journal primarily as a medium to spread scientific publications, immediately followed by its function as a platform for young and inexperienced researchers and for discussing difficult and often politically and emotionally loaded topics. Luckily our doubts never turned into disappointment. The journal still is a platform for both young and more experienced authors and even without the revenues of the pharmaceutical industries we are able to publish what we think is important. We do however acknowledge that this is only possible through the dedication of two parties: ISPOG and Health Informa. We therefore would like to thank Health Informa – especially in the person of Didi Peng – for their support, not only in terms of finances but also for making our collaboration a proverbial “piece of cake”.
The board of ISPOG always supported us, not only in good times but particularly in bad times. Within the financial constraints they faced, they gave us their unfaltering support with regard to the two pillars of ISPOG: international congresses and the Journal. Thanks!
A last word of thanks goes to our successors Pauline Slade and Sandy Goldbeck-Wood. We are delighted that you have decided to take over our Editorship. Not only because both of you are excellent scientists, but also because as a matching pair of editors, “a psychologist and a gynaecologist”, you embody the tradition we have set for the Journal.
Although we hand over our position as Editors-in-Chief we will remain members of the ISPOG-tradition because this is where we belong. Thank you for having us in the family, good luck to you all and we hope to meet you in Berlin for a more personal meet and greet!
H. B. M. van de Wiel and W. C. M. Weijmar Schultz
Editors-in-Chief