Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
10.1007/s13539-014-0158-6

Efforts begin to sprout: publications in JCSM on cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle wasting receive attention

Stefan D. Anker  and Stephan von Haehling1, 2  
(1)
Department of Innovative Clinical Trials, University Medical Centre Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
(2)
Applied Cachexia Research, Department of Cardiology, Charité Medical School, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany
 
 
Stefan D. Anker (Corresponding author)
 
Stephan von Haehling (Corresponding author)
Received: 7 August 2014Accepted: 7 August 2014Published online: 6 September 2014
Without Abstract
Does the world need a journal focusing on cachexia and sarcopenia, some asked in 2010 and 2011 when The Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (for short: JCSM) had just been launched. Today, we are looking back at 4 years of activity with more than 140 published reviews, editorials, letters and most importantly, original research articles. Particularly in the beginning, it was sometimes not easy to fill the journal and many know that we still have a high acceptance rate, well above 50 %.
In 2011, we and our publisher, Springer, managed to get JCSM listed on the PubMed website, mainly because we are an Open Access journal. This helped our visibility a lot. To be more precise, we are listed in PubMed via a PubMed Central entry—but to the outside world, that is the same. Still, there are important fine nuances of difference, as only a MEDLINE acceptance appears to truly guarantee a PubMed listing. MEDLINE declined our first application last year.
JCSM is also listed in Scopus since 2011 (see http:// ​www.​scopus.​com—this is the search system of Elsevier). You can also find us in Google Scholar since about the same time and in the second half of 2013, we received confirmation of our acceptance by ISI Web of Knowledge (Thomson-Reuters) to be considered for assessment of citations and impact factor retrospectively since the start of the journal in their 2013 Journal Citation Report. This is where things got exciting and speculation started as to what will be our impact factor?! We can now say that it is 7.413 for 2013, as we know since 29th of July. We are listed in the field “General and internal Medicine” on position 8 of 150. This is a great success for the editorial board together with our reviewers and for all of our research community. Had JCSM been listed in the field “Endocrinology and Metabolism”, it would have been 11th of the 123 that are now listed in this category, and amongst “Nutrition” journals, JCSM would have been ranked third of the 78 different publications there. A big thank you to all of you who have contributed to the journal in one way or another and to our readers.
For those of you who like technical details of how such an impact factor comes about, here’s some more information. The Impact Factor 2013 is calculated based on the citations in 2013 to items published in the two previous years in JCSM, divided by the sum of articles of those 2 years. In 2011, we published 22 articles that ISI considered full articles and we received 191 citations to 2011 items in 2013. In 2012, we published 24 articles that ISI considered full articles and we received 143 citations to 2012 items in 2013. The total of 341 citations and 46 papers resulted in the impact factor (ratio) of 7.413. It is important to note that our self-citation rate is only 4 %—we think that at any rate, <20 % is reasonable for a young journal like ours—established journals often have self-citation rates of 3–10 %.
In 2013, we had 22 citations to the 30 papers published in JCSM, which gives us an Immediacy Index of 0.733. Of these 30 articles published in 2013 in JCSM, 7 were reviews. Reviews in our journal had on average 119 references, the other 23 articles on average had 34 references. One other index, the cited half-life for the journal (which is the median age of the items cited in the current year analysed) is 2.5 years for JCSM, but likely, is not yet fully informative as our journal is too young. The average age of the items cited in JCSM itself is 8.5 years, and the 5-year impact factor for JCSM is 8.786.
As an indication of which papers published in JCSM have received most citations, we enclose two tables that are based on the ISI Web of Knowledge, as assessed on 1st August, 2014. In Table 1, the 10 best cited JCSM papers ever are listed. In Table 2 (section A–C), the 10 best cited JCSM papers published in JCSM in 2011, 2012, and 2013 are listed. Not surprisingly, many of the best cited papers are reviews, but also original research and trial reports as well as consensus statements are often cited.
Table 1
List of 10 best cited JCSM papers ever (as per 7 August 2014)
/static-content/images/655/art%253A10.1007%252Fs13539-014-0158-6/MediaObjects/13539_2014_158_Tab1_HTML.gif
Table 2
List of 10 best cited JCSM papers published in 2011, 2012 and 2013 (as per 7 August 2014)
/static-content/images/655/art%253A10.1007%252Fs13539-014-0158-6/MediaObjects/13539_2014_158_Tab2a_HTML.gif
/static-content/images/655/art%253A10.1007%252Fs13539-014-0158-6/MediaObjects/13539_2014_158_Tab2b_HTML.gif
/static-content/images/655/art%253A10.1007%252Fs13539-014-0158-6/MediaObjects/13539_2014_158_Tab2c_HTML.gif
We hope this gives you some insights into how JCSM is doing. We want to develop the journal further and hope to have some news on future developments soon. For now, we are happy about the development so far and somewhat proud of an impact factor that is rather high. The field of cachexia and sarcopenia research is clinically important, innovative and interesting. The good news received is also a big challenge for the future. We hope that together, we can keep the journal at a high quality standard even if some more papers are published in the future. We expect that submission will increase and apologize already, as certainly we will have to increase the rejection rate somewhat. But again, let’s see how we will fare and how we can solve these problems. For now, thanks again to all of you—and please keep submitting your best work to JCSM.
Acknowledgments
The authors of this manuscript certify that they comply with the ethical guidelines for authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia, and Muscle 2010; 1:7–8 (von Haehling S, Morley JE, Coats AJ, and Anker SD).
Conflict of interest
Stefan Anker and Stephan von Haehling declare that they have no conflict of interest related to the present submission.
References
1.
von Haehling S, Anker SD. Cachexia as a major underestimated and unmet medical need: facts and numbers. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2010;1:1–5.
2.
Lenk K, Schuler G, Adams V. Skeletal muscle wasting in cachexia and sarcopenia: molecular pathophysiology and impact of exercise training. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2010;1:9–21.
3.
Dalton JT, Barnette KG, Bohl CE, Hancock ML, Rodriguez D, Dodson ST, et al. The selective androgen receptor modulator GTx-024 (enobosarm) improves lean body mass and physical function in healthy elderly men and postmenopausal women: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2011;2:153–61.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
4.
von Haehling S, Morley JE, Anker SD. An overview of sarcopenia: facts and numbers on prevalence and clinical impact. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2010;1:129–33.CrossRef
5.
Mak RH, Ikizler AT, Kovesdy CP, Raj DS, Stenvinkel P, Kalantar-Zadeh K. Wasting in chronic kidney disease. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2011;2:9–25.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
6.
Elkina Y, von Haehling S, Anker SD, Springer J. The role of myostatin in muscle wasting: an overview. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2011;2:143–51.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
7.
Lainscak M, von Haehling S, Doehner W, Sarc I, Jeric T, Ziherl K, et al. Body mass index and prognosis in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2011;2:81–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
8.
Fearon K, Evans WJ, Anker SD. Myopenia—a new universal term for muscle wasting. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2011;2:1–3.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
9.
Cesari M, Fielding RA, Pahor M, Goodpaster B, Hellerstein M, van Kan GA, et al. International Working Group on Sarcopenia; Biomarkers of sarcopenia in clinical trials—recommendations from the International Working Group on Sarcopenia. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2012;3:181–90.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
10.
Fanzani A, Conraads VM, Penna F, Martinet W. Molecular and cellular mechanisms of skeletal muscle atrophy: an update. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2012;3:163–79.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
11.
Stewart Coats AJ, Srinivasan V, Surendran J, Chiramana H, Vangipuram SR, Bhatt NN, et al. on behalf of the ACT-ONE Trial Investigators; The ACT-ONE trial, a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study of the anabolic/catabolic transforming agent, MT-102 in subjects with cachexia related to stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer: study design. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2011;2:201–7.
12.
Schmidt K, von Haehling S, Doehner W, Palus S, Anker SD, Springer J. IGF-1 treatment reduces weight loss and improves outcome in a rat model of cancer cachexia. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2011;2:105–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
13.
Argilés JM, López-Soriano FJ, Toledo M, Betancourt A, Serpe R, Busquets S. The cachexia score (CASCO): a new tool for staging cachectic cancer patients. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2011;2:87–93.
14.
Stephens NA, Skipworth RJ, Macdonald AJ, Greig CA, Ross JA, Fearon KC. Intramyocellular lipid droplets increase with progression of cachexia in cancer patients. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2011;2:111–7.
15.
Scott D, Blizzard L, Fell J, Jones G. The epidemiology of sarcopenia in community living older adults: what role does lifestyle play? J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2011;2:125–34.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
16.
Sakuma K, Yamaguchi A. Sarcopenia and cachexia: the adaptations of negative regulators of skeletal muscle mass. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2012;3:77–94.
17.
von Haehling S, Morley JE, Anker SD. From muscle wasting to sarcopenia and myopenia: update 2012. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2012;3:213–7.CrossRef
18.
Busquets S, Toledo M, Orpí M, Massa D, Porta M, Capdevila E, et al. Myostatin blockage using actRIIB antagonism in mice bearing the Lewis lung carcinoma results in the improvement of muscle wasting and physical performance. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2012;3:37–43.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
19.
Lainscak M, von Haehling S, Doehner W, Anker SD. The obesity paradox in chronic disease: facts and numbers. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2012;3:1–4.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
20.
Russ DW, Gregg-Cornell K, Conaway MJ, Clark BC. Evolving concepts on the age-related changes in "muscle quality". J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2012;3:95–109.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
21.
Dasarathy S. Consilience in sarcopenia of cirrhosis. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2012;3:225–37.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
22.
Honors MA, Kinzig KP. The role of insulin resistance in the development of muscle wasting during cancer cachexia. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2012;3:5–11.
23.
Ebner N, Werner CG, Doehner W, Anker SD, von Haehling S. Recent developments in the treatment of cachexia: highlights from the 6th Cachexia Conference. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2012;3:45–50.
24.
Vaughan VC, Martin P, Lewandowski PA. Cancer cachexia: impact, mechanisms and emerging treatments. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2013;4:95–109.
25.
Patel SS, Molnar MZ, Tayek JA, Ix JH, Noori N, Benner D, et al. Serum creatinine as a marker of muscle mass in chronic kidney disease: results of a cross-sectional study and review of literature. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2013;4:19–29.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
26.
Farkas J, von Haehling S, Kalantar-Zadeh K, Morley JE, Anker SD, Lainscak M. Cachexia as a major public health problem: frequent, costly, and deadly. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2013;4:173–8.
27.
Gould DW, Lahart I, Carmichael AR, Metsios GS. Cancer cachexia prevention via physical exercise: molecular mechanisms. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2013;4:111–24.
28.
Lenk K, Palus S, Schur R, Datta R, Dong J, Culler MD, et al. Effect of ghrelin and its analogues, BIM-28131 and BIM-28125, on the expression of myostatin in a rat heart failure model. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2013;4:63–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
29.
Malmstrom TK, Miller DK, Herning MM, Morley JE. Low appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) with limited mobility and poor health outcomes in middle-aged African Americans. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2013;4:179–86.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
30.
Kalantar-Zadeh K, Rhee C, Sim JJ, Stenvinkel P, Anker SD, Kovesdy CP. Why cachexia kills: examining the causality of poor outcomes in wasting conditions. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2013;4:89–94.
31.
Nedergaard A, Karsdal MA, Sun S, Henriksen K. Serological muscle loss biomarkers: an overview of current concepts and future possibilities. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2013;4:1–17.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
32.
Phillips BE, Smith K, Liptrot S, Atherton PJ, Varadhan K, Rennie MJ, et al. Effect of colon cancer and surgical resection on skeletal muscle mitochondrial enzyme activity in colon cancer patients: a pilot study. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2013;4:71–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
33.
Filippin LI, Teixeira VN, Viacava PR, Lora PS, Xavier LL, Xavier RM. Temporal development of muscle atrophy in murine model of arthritis is related to disease severity. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2013;4:231–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral