Independence Day

July 4 is a very important holiday in the United States, as everybody knows, and as anybody who ever witnessed it will never forget. Its aim is to remember and celebrate the acceptance by the “Continental Congress” of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Since that day the then 13 states have perceived themselves as a new nation rather than colonies of the British Empire. The holiday was first officially commemorated as such in 1777, making it the 240th anniversary this year.

The world has come a long way over these almost two and a half centuries, and so have the United States, meanwhile comprising 50 states and 1 federal district as well as 5 self-governing territories. The Star-Spangler-Banner as their national anthem repeatedly emphasizes that the country over which this flag waves is thought to be “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” again depicting the importance of independence.

It is one thing to claim to be independent, and another to live up to that claim. This is true not only for nations but also for editors of scientific journals who should consider themselves free and sometimes brave. Is that so? Editorial independence is the most valuable asset they have. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has clear-cut recommendations about this[1]: “…Editors should base editorial decisions on the validity of the work and its importance to the journal's readers, not on the commercial implications for the journal, and editors should be free to express critical but responsible views about all aspects of medicine without fear of retribution...” If you read our publisher's statement on the preceding page,[2] you can rest assured as far as The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon is concerned, at least with the current players. The same is true for the involved societies (German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery and Swiss Society for Cardiac and Thoracic Vascular Surgery). The potential enemy hides elsewhere.

Changes in governmental policies may influence which content is to be published by the scientific community and which is not. This starts with funding and ends with publishing agreements (or denials) by government controlled institutions. In a free and democratic world this should not happen. For an editor a potentially much more real danger may, however, come from within: for instance from influential authors who take chagrin when their work is not published because an editor has reservations about the scientific validity (see above). In difficult decisions like these hard proof may be hard to find, but unofficial hints and warnings can already be enough to alert a responsible editor better not to embark on a dubious journey. It is comforting to know the scientific community behind her or him in case of doubt or even consecutive blatant warfare (“retribution,” see above).

These are strong words, but the US national anthem, too, has quite a bit of martial content, right from the start: “And the rockets' red glare / the bombs bursting in air / Gave proof through the night / that our flag was still there; / O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave / O'er the land of the free / and the home of the brave?” – immortalized by Jimi Hendrix in his instrumental live versions where you can virtually hear and feel guitar-created bombs exploding.

• References

• 1 http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/journal-owners-and-editorial-freedom.html#two , accessed February 15, 2017
• 2 Schiff D. The importance of facts and the role of academic publishers in today's world – a publisher's view. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017; 65: v