Almost 10 years ago, in an editorial published in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), we celebrated an important event in the history of the journal, coinciding with the 50th anniversary of its founding . At that time, we included a representative figure, showing how much the prestige, popularity and value of the journal had increased since its origins, reaching a remarkable impact factor (IF) value of 2.15 in 2012. Who would have guess then that the IF of CCLM may have then reached a value exactly fourfold higher (i.e., 8.49) ten years later? Even more importantly, this increase significantly exceeds that of other journals in the Web of Science (WoS) category of “MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY”, as clearly shown in Figure 1, so that CCLM has now reached a podium position in this category, surpassed only by Clinical Chemistry (IF: 12.167) and Translational Research (IF: 10.171), while CCLM was only seventh in 2017.
The reasons for such a considerable increase in the IF of CCLM may be many, sometimes unpredictable and imponderable. The thoughtful awareness and proactive recognition that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) would have become “something” really serious has led to the publication of a series of articles in the early-2020 that, altogether, have certainly contributed to increasing the number of citations and thus the IF of the journal , , , , . But CCLM is not only COVID-19. Other important articles, which attracted many citations and contributed to increasing the IF, dealt with laboratory stewardship of bacterial infections , reference interval determination  and cancer biomarker discovery , in a long list of valuable contributions that combined original articles, up-to-date reviews, commentaries and letters to the editor. It is noteworthy that a detailed analysis of all articles that have contributed to this success has revealed - almost surprisingly - that nearly half of all highly cited papers were actually “original articles” rather than “reviews” or “opinion papers”, two categories that have more than others contributed to attracting citations in the past. Another important aspect that needs to be emphasized here, is that this great improvement in the IF value is largely independent of self-cites, since only 7% (922 out of 12,899) are self-citations. Regarding the geographical origin of the articles, the top countries contributing to CCLM in the past three years were Italy, US, Germany, China and The Netherlands.
Our sincere thanks go first and foremost to all our authors for their respectable papers, but we also wish to acknowledge the great work of all our reviewers, our board of associated editors, our editorial board and, last but not least, to the invaluable skills of our editorial office in Berlin. However, our thanks also go to all our readers, because we must always bear in mind that the ultimate mission of a medical journal is to disseminate scientific knowledge and to contribute to the improvement of (laboratory) medicine.
It is also noteworthy that in the last 2 years CCLM has published a number of official documents of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) , , , , , , of which CCLM is the official journal. It has also published the Abstracts of EuroMedLab Munich 2021 , and a number of official papers from functional units of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) , , .
Now the two very obvious questions are … would we be able to maintain the IF of CCLM at this high level? What are the future plans of the journal? There is no reliable answer to the first question, since we do not have a crystal ball and, as expected, the logic of the IF is often unpredictable and imponderable, also due to the fact that the algorithm used for its calculation has changed in the past, and may be further changed in the future. It is then common experience that the perception of editorial board’s assessment of articles’ success is sometimes fallacious. This is reflected by the fact that some interesting articles – for which we would have predicted a high number of reads and citations – have in fact been overlooked by the scientific community, while others – originally considered less attractive – have achieved great and unpredictable success. We are, after all, human, and our ability to predict the future (thus including journal success) is limited.
Regarding the future plans of the Journal, we can already say that the pipeline is quite attractive. We have planned a number of special issues on specific topics in laboratory medicine, and we have also planned a special issue to celebrate CCLM’s 60th anniversary, that is scheduled for publication in the first quarter of 2023. On the other hand, we cannot ignore the fact that the achievement of such a remarkable value of the IF will likely have a considerable impact on increasing the number of future submissions, an aspect that needs to be carefully managed to avoid the collapse of associate editors, editorial office and reviewers. We have already partially renewed and rejuvenate the editorial board of CCLM and we will probably need to do so in the future by recruiting young and enthusiastic people, who can actively contribute to managing the peer-review process. This will also lead to a more rigorous selection of manuscripts, to avoid a long backlog of articles, either accepted and still unpublished or published “ahead of print”. Borderline scoping papers will need to be forwarded to other journals in the field (e.g., to “sister journals” like Journal of Laboratory Medicine, Diagnosis and Advances in Laboratory Medicine) and the board of associate editors will certainly need to apply more stringent evaluation criteria in terms of study design, sample size and article drafting. We ask all our contributors to understand that an increased number of submissions will lead to a further increase in the current rejection rate, which is already 85%. Our commitment remains to publish articles of high quality in all fields of modern laboratory medicine and to provide a forum for updating knowledge, which should translate in better quality of laboratory services and enhanced patient care.
In conclusion, we would like to thank again all those who have actively contributed to achieving such an outstanding success of CCLM.
Research funding: None declared.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
1. Lippi, G, Gillery, P, Kazmierczak, S, Lackner, KJ, Melichar, B, Siest, G, et al.. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine: progress and new challenges for our 50-year-old journal. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:5–7. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2012-0449.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Henry, BM, de Oliveira, MHS, Benoit, S, Plebani, M, Lippi, G. Hematologic, biochemical and immune biomarker abnormalities associated with severe illness and mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:1021–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0369.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Han, H, Yang, L, Liu, R, Liu, F, Wu, KL, Li, J, et al.. Prominent changes in blood coagulation of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:1116–20. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0188.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Padoan, A, Cosma, C, Sciacovelli, L, Faggian, D, Plebani, M. Analytical performances of a chemiluminescence immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG and antibody kinetics. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:1081–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0443.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Lippi, G, Simundic, AM, Plebani, M. Potential preanalytical and analytical vulnerabilities in the laboratory diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:1070–6. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0285.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Ferrari, D, Motta, A, Strollo, M, Banfi, G, Locatelli, M. Routine blood tests as a potential diagnostic tool for COVID-19. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:1095–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0398.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Schuetz, P, Beishuizen, A, Broyles, M, Ferrer, R, Gavazzi, G, Gluck, EH, et al.. Procalcitonin (PCT)-guided antibiotic stewardship: an international experts consensus on optimized clinical use. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:1308–18. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-1181.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Jones, GRD, Haeckel, R, Loh, TP, Sikaris, K, Streichert, T, Katayev, A, et al.. Indirect methods for reference interval determination - review and recommendations. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;57:20–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-0073.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Wang, M, Zhu, J, Lubman, DM, Gao, C. Aberrant glycosylation and cancer biomarker discovery: a promising and thorny journey. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:407–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-0379.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
10. Cobbaert, C, Capoluongo, ED, Vanstapel, FJLA, Bossuyt, PMM, Bhattoa, HP, Nissen, PH, et al.. Implementation of the new EU IVD regulation – urgent initiatives are needed to avert impending crisis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022;60:33–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2021-0975.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Coşkun, A, Carobene, A, Aarsand, AK, Aksungar, FB, Serteser, M, Sandberg, S, et al.. Within- and between-subject biological variation data for serum zinc, copper and selenium obtained from 68 apparently healthy Turkish subjects. Clin Chem Lab Med 2021;60:533–42. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2021-0886.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Carobene, A, Aarsand, AK, Bartlett, WA, Coskun, A, Diaz-Garzon, J, Fernandez-Calle, P, et al.. The European biological variation study (EuBIVAS): a summary report. Clin Chem Lab Med 2021;60:505–17. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2021-0370.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Coşkun, A, Aarsand, AK, Sandberg, S, Guerra, E, Locatelli, M, Díaz-Garzón, J, et al.. Within- and between-subject biological variation data for tumor markers based on the European Biological Variation Study. Clin Chem Lab Med 2021;60:543–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2021-0283.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Vermeersch, P, Frans, G, von Meyer, A, Costelloe, S, Lippi, G, Simundic, AM. How to meet ISO15189: 2012 pre-analytical requirements in clinical laboratories? A consensus document by the EFLM WG-PRE. Clin Chem Lab Med 2021;59:1047–61. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-1859.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Wieringa, G, Queraltó, J, Homšak, E, Jassam, N, Cavalier, E, Svinarov, D, et al.. A proposed common training framework for specialists in laboratory medicine under EU directive 2013/55/EC (the recognition of professional qualifications). Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;59:505–12. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-1504.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Bohn, MK, Lippi, G, Horvath, AR, Erasmus, R, Grimmler, M, Gramegna, M, et al.. IFCC interim guidelines on rapid point-of-care antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection in asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals. Clin Chem Lab Med 2021;59:1507–15. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2021-0455.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Lippi, G, Horvath, AR, Adeli, K. Editorial and executive summary: IFCC interim guidelines on clinical laboratory testing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:1965–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-1415.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Payne, DA, Russomando, G, Linder, MW, Baluchova, K, Ashavaid, T, Steimer, W, et al.. External quality assessment (EQA) and alternative assessment procedures (AAPs) in molecular diagnostics: findings of an international survey. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;59:301–6. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0101.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston