… and good-bye!

Dear colleagues,

To say good-bye after more than 20 years of work for one specific journal may resemble the inevitable farewell of dinosaurs due to climatic changes, but the least I can say is that have I greatly enjoyed my time with Endoscopy. The different colleagues I had the honor and pleasure to work with, especially during the last team, contributed enormously to the pleasure of learning. The mixture of differing mentalities, elder and wise endoscopists and young, sharp-edged researchers, together with the cooperation with authors and reviewers from around the globe, has been an exhilarating and stimulating experience.

There is quite some work ahead in the area of scientific developments and publishing in clinical medicine, and in particular, in such a spectacular and still rapidly developing area as endoscopy. Our biggest enemy, the bias, still sits at our table and tries to eat our meal and determine the menu. Diagnostic and interventional studies – we share the respective diseases with other interventionalists (surgeons) and diagnostic positivists (radiologists) - suffer from many endemic and life-threatening medical problems. All too often, pseudo-evidence is generated from retrospective studies that are too small to draw the conclusions drawn by the authors. The natural sequence of studies gets lost, since hypothesis generating publications (retrospective analyses) do not lead to prospective and randomized studies, but claim to offer the ultimate proof. The next and metastasizing stage of the disease is the Morbus Meta-analysis, and from the original meaning (reanalysis of randomized controlled studies), a “meta-analysis” has degenerated to a summary of everything, ranging from case series to higher ranking studies. The term meta-analysis per se then suggests a high authority and all of a sudden, the emperor easily gets new clothes. Not to mention the pressure we are all under to use studies as marketing tools (I have the biggest impact factor, send all patients to me I have the highest success rates and my private hospital chain is also happy about this). So the responsibility of editors and their teams will become increasingly difficult.

With the increase of gastroenterologic journals, competition for those specialized in endoscopy has also increased. This expansion can, however, be seen in a positive light. It is highly likely to elevate the general scientific level. This is indicated by the increasing number of quality multicenter randomized studies being performed, and especially European trials. With these developments mind, I would like to wish my successor Peter Siersema, supported by Michael Bretthauer and Mario Dinis-Ribeiro as co-editors-in-chief, all the very best for the coming years. I would also like to take the opportunity here thank them and the entire editorial team, for their enormous support and input which has played a crucial part in the positive development of the journal. Peter and the new team are exactly the right people to master the challenges that lie ahead.

Enjoy and support endoscopy and Endoscopy!

Thomas Rösch
Former Editor-in-Chief, Endoscopy