To mark the 35th anniversary of Annals of Oncology, this interview features Prof. Jan Vermorken, Editor-in-Chief from 2009 to 2014.
Prof. Vermorken reflects on the journal’s evolution during his tenure, discussing key milestones such as the growth of ESMO, the journal’s multidisciplinary approach, and its global influence on oncology research. He shares insights on the challenges faced in advancing the journal’s impact and offers his perspective on its role in shaping the field of oncology.
How was oncology when you became Editor-in-Chief of Annals of Oncology, and what contributions did the journal make to the field at that time?
When I became Editor-in-Chief, oncology was maturing toward a more in depth understanding of cancers, well beyond the anatomical description of the original diagnosis. Translational research (TR) studies had started to unlock the biologically, and sometimes therapeutically, distinct patient subgroups within each tumour type. At the beginning of my term, Annals of Oncology was focused on the rapid dissemination of scientific communications related to oncology, particularly medical oncology. However, the journal's character was—and still is—multidisciplinary, which needed to be reflected in the presence of representatives from various disciplines on the Editorial Board and Committee. Moreover, although Annals of Oncology has been the flagship journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), it has a global reach, publishing research from all over the world. During my tenure, the Editorial Board and Committee had roughly 60% European members and 40% non-European members.
What major challenges did you face in your role, and how did you address them?
Key challenges I faced included bringing in large, randomised phase III trials with the potential to change clinical practice, strengthening the journal's educational content and improving access to research outputs. We tackled these issues by encouraging individual Editorial Board members to take initiatives and presenting on topics such as how to conduct trials, how to write a papers and how to get it accepted by Annals of Oncology at different forums.
As part of ESMO's new strategy, it was my intention to make the different disciplines more visible in the journal. To achieve this, I wanted to make one or two Associate Editors clearly responsible for tumour-site sections, such as gastrointestinal cancer, genitourinary cancer, gynaecologic oncology, and geriatric oncology. Another significant development was the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) choosing Annals as their official journal, along with the entry of Annals of Oncology into the Oxford Open programme. Submissions increased by approximately 15% each year, the rejection rate rose to 85% and by the time I wrote my farewell letter in December 2013, the impact factor had reached 7.384, representing a 50% increase over five years.
Can you share a memorable moment during your tenure that highlights the journal's impact on oncology?
There is not one memorable moment that comes to my mind. However, the remarkable growth in in ESMO’s membership, the regularly updated ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines, the support ESMO offers its members (particularly in terms of career development), and the increasing recognition by sponsors that ESMO conferences are the key platform to present their early data, all contributed to the journal's success and global standing.
On a personal note, I would like to thank the team of Associate Editors who worked with me during my five-year tenure. Special thanks go to Bishop for guiding me through the complexities of journal publishing and the editorial office staff, including Giovanella Porcu, Paola Minotti, Lizzie Philimore and Lewis Rowett. Working with them was one of the most memorable aspects of my time as Editor-in-Chief.
What advice would you give to emerging researchers who wish to publish in Annals of Oncology?
I would advise emerging researchers to carefully read the submission instructions, particularly regarding manuscript structure, use of page numbering and/or line numbering.
Excellent medical or scientific writing can be described as concise, accurate, complete, consistent, persuasive, and tailored to the intended audience. Key considerations include ethics (such as informed consent and adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki), using international standards (like RECIST, NCI-CTC, TNM), and understanding and reporting quantitative methods. If possible, I recommend involving a statistician from the outset; if not, researchers should use recognised statistical designs.