Good night and good luck

‘Good night and good luck’ was the signature sign off used by veteran US TV journalist Edward R Murrow, made famous in a highly regarded 2005 movie of the same name which highlighted the battle for freedom of the press during the era of McCarthyism in the USA¹.

In essence the battle against censorship.

There are many similarities between this battle for freedom of the press and the ongoing efforts of medical journals to ensure that the papers we publish, be they systematic reviews, original research, letters, or guidelines are what they seem to be.

More and more, those of us in editorial roles must ensure that the submitted papers are not examples of plagiarism, that the original research was done and not concocted, and that systematic reviews have honestly assessed all the literature and not just those parts which serve to support the authors’ opinions.

We are fortunate to have systems in place to assist us in this process. The era of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is also upon us. AI will no doubt be a source of further assistance to editorial teams assessing the worth of submissions but will also call for a higher degree of scrutiny to ensure submissions have not been written using artificial intelligence or, if they have, that the contribution of AI to the process has been acknowledged.

Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years. It has become the cornerstone of the scholarly publication of medical research and review. Peer review subjects each author’s work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field and thus encourages authors to produce high quality research to improve quality care. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted by the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal^2,3.

Peer review is not perfect of course. The quality of peer review depends on the reviewers’ knowledge and experience and their willingness to engage with the author to try to improve submissions. That process is a two-way street and generally requires authors to respond to each individual point raised in review and to discuss and defend their position. On rare occasions agreement cannot be reached and it then falls upon the editor to seek further peer review or to reject the submission. Rejection does not necessarily mean a paper is unworthy of publication, but it does mean that, after a fair, thorough, and vigilant process that paper does not meet the standards set by this journal. Hard decisions must be made to protect standards, science, clinicians, and our patients. The process is rigorous and good editing is no easy job.

Speaking of which, this will be my last editorial as editor in chief of Climacteric.

It has been a privilege and a pleasure for me to serve as editor in chief of Climacteric for nearly eight years, but the time is right to hand over to my successor Dr Tim Hillard. During my time in the chair, I have enjoyed outstanding support and advice from so many people including our associate editors, Robin Bell, Peter Chedraui, Tim Hillard, Rakibul Islam, James Pickar, Yu Qi and Tevfik Yoldemir, our editorial staff Jean Wright and Susan Brown without whose hard work the editorial process would not have run so smoothly and of course our publishers, Taylor and Francis, particularly Gail Hartley and Niall Rundle. My sincere thanks to all of you. To the CEO of IMS Rebecca Cheshire and to the IMS Board, thank you for your trust and for allowing us the editorial independence essential for the proper functioning of a quality scientific medical journal. The journal is in a good place, and I am delighted to hand over its care to our new editor in chief Tim Hillard. May all who sail with him enjoy fair winds, good progress and much success.

Goodbye and good luck.