Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology (SJG) was founded by professor Johannes Myren more than 50 years ago. He was taught science by Basil Hirschowitz, Birmingham, Alabama, and when he returned to Norway, he started to supervise candidates in scientific gastroenterology and parallel he also established SJG.
His candidates became professors at the other university hospitals in Norway.
I myself was guided into gastroenterology and science by two of his candidates, Professor Per G. Burhol in Tromsø and Professor Hermod Petersen Trondheim. After more than 10 years as editor in SJG, I felt that it was time to step down and leave the position as Editor-in-Chief to Professor Lars Aabakken who has served the journal for more than 20 years.
Scandinavia consists principally of three countries, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. Iceland also naturally belongs to Scandinavia since the population speaks a Scandinavian language (old Norwegian) being descendants from the Vikings and having been governed by Danes for many hundred years.
During my years as Editor-in-Chief, Professor Einar Björnsson from Iceland became the first non-Norwegian editor. He served as Executive Editor for 6 years, but unfortunately went to another editorial position in January this year.
Finland is not a Scandinavian but a Nordic country. Having been governed by Sweden for many hundred years and still having a minority of the population with Swedish as their first language. The main language in Finland, however, is not related to Scandinavian languages. Nevertheless, Professor Martti Färkkilä from Helsinki replaced Einar Björnsson as Executive Editor. Thus, the editors are now Nordic, but we will keep to SJG as the brand name. Finally, Professor Reidar Fossmark from Trondheim will become Executive Editor from the first of July.
Then I will turn to my experience both as clinical scientist and editor. During my more than 40 years in scientific gastroenterology I have noticed how economic interests have gained influence upon journals as well as meetings. I am very pleased and proud that SJG has remained completely free of such influence.
Personally, I have especial reasons to be grateful to SJG, since the journal at an early phase accepted many of my so-called controversial papers, many of which have later been confirmed. It is a pity that nowadays many papers are rejected because the results are not in line with present theory although without errors in methodology being found.
In general papers should be rejected not due to the results, but due to methodological weaknesses.
It is also a problem that so few discuss methodological errors in previous publications when submitting studies with alternative findings. In fact, most often the conflicting results are due to methodological errors in the old or the new study. Many times, such differences are explained by species differences. Taking into consideration that rodents and man are genetically more than 90% similar, it seems to me that species differences are used as an explanation too often. By the genetic similarities between man and mammals, I also believe that findings in mammals à priori should be accepted also for man until disproved. Thus, those claiming that results from studies on mammals do not concern man, must themselves disprove it.
In recent years, many journals have reduced the acceptance of letters commenting on publications in the journal. This is sad since critical comments are important for the readers in evaluating the original paper. In SJG we have as a rule accepted letters commenting of papers published in the journal.
On the other hand, many of the manuscripts received may concern only minor problems which do not necessarily require a complete paper. During later decades ‘evidence-based medicine’ has become the cornerstone in clinical medicine. This is good, but it must be recalled that the ‘evidence’ is only for the study period and does not say anything about long-term consequences.
Therefore, biological knowledge and results of long-term animal studies must be included in the estimation of safety.
Similarly, I will comment on the popularity of meta-analyses. It seems to me that many believe that the result of these kinds of analyses gives the final answer. However, it must be realized that the reason for doing meta-analyses in general is that separate studies have not been able to give a clear answer. Accordingly, the differences between the options are small. Furthermore, meta-analyses are hampered by publication biases as well as bias in the selection of studies included, therefore, such analyses tend to overestimate positive effects.
Finally, I will comment on biological knowledge in general.
It seems to me that many do not realize our great lack of knowledge. The etiology of most of the chronic inflammatory and degenerative diseases is unknown, and many of them are classified as autoimmune diseases indicating that our immune system should be so imperfect. From an evolutionary point of view this is not plausible. During my years in gastroenterology, the description of Helicobacter pylori as the main cause of gastritis, peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer revolutionized gastroenterology. I myself did not grasp the importance of Helicobacter pylori before the central role of gastrin in the pathogenesis of duodenal ulcer was described. However, I had already in 1981 written that peptic ulcer could be due to Herpes virus infections in ganglions. Anyhow, despite the success of the Helicobacter pylori story, the main resources in research in for instance inflammatory bowel disease, are put into studies and preparations with the purpose to reduce inflammation. As I see it, microbes are the cause of most of these diseases. The reluctance to accept microbes as a possible cause of many diseases, is reflected by the lack of worry to take away the biological function of gastric juice by using efficient inhibitors of gastric acid secretion as well as gut installation of feces in the treatment of irritable bowel disease.
To conclude, I am proud of having had the opportunity to be an editor in SJG.
I am confident that the new team of editors will continue to keep SJG as a ‘clean’ and important journal.
Trondheim June 2020.