Box 1 | Prevailing attitudes of medical professionals emerging from public review and participant survey Agreement with goal of standardizing nomenclature, with acknowledgment of challenges Regarded multiplicity of terms and lack of adherence to established definitions as confusing and potentially leading to errors Anticipated that a standardized nomenclature would help foster consistency in trial design, execution, and reporting Judged consistency between terms used in scholarly and patient communities to be an important goal, but not one overriding the need for precision and efficiency Journal editors strongly agreed that having a more standardized nomenclature for kidney disease would be useful for their journals, but they anticipated time constraints of journal personnel to be the biggest barrier to implementation Qualified endorsement of replacing "renal" with "kidney" Felt that foregrounding "kidney" would be easier for patients and their families Perceived a greater likelihood of raising awareness, attracting funding, and influencing public policy with consistent use of "kidney" Cautioned against a wholesale switch because "renal" may be less awkward in some contexts and may be necessary in others (e.g., ESRD as a CMS definition) Dissatisfaction with "end-stage" as a descriptor of kidney disease Recognized that this wording can be demoralizing and stigmatizing for patients Considered the implication of imminent death to be outdated Frustrated by imprecision in its use (ranging from being a synonym for dialysis patients to a descriptor of patients with kidney failure with or without kidney replacement therapy) Recognition of the need for ongoing attention to nomenclature issues Noted that standardization of nomenclature is dependent on uptake of consensus definitions B where definitions are in flux or are more contentious, standardization of that nomenclature set may be premature B enhancing adoption of definitions requires continued effort Highlighted the need for harmonization with ongoing, broader-scope ontology efforts Expected that improved understanding of molecular mechanisms will lead to more-precise definitions and nomenclature CMS, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; ESRD, end-stage renal disease.

No abstract

In 2011, Nephrology Dialysis and Transplantation (NDT) established a more restrictive selection process for manuscripts submitted to the journal, reducing the acceptance rate from 25% (2008-2009) to currently about 12-15%. To achieve this goal, we decided to score the priority of manuscripts submitted to NDT and to reject more papers at triage than in the past. This new scoring system allows a rapid decision for the authors without external review. However, the risk of such a restrictive policy may be that the journal might fail to capture important studies that are eventually published in higher-ranked journals. To look into this problem, we analysed random samples of papers (∼10%) rejected by NDT in 2012. Of the papers rejected at triage and those rejected after regular peer review, 59 and 61%, respectively, were accepted in other journals. A detailed analysis of these papers showed that only 4 out of 104 and 7 out of 93 of the triaged and rejected papers, respectively, were published in journals with an impact factor higher than that of NDT. Furthermore, for all these papers, independent assessors confirmed the evaluation made by the original reviewers. The number of citations of these papers was similar to that typically obtained by publications in the corresponding journals. Even though the analyses seem reassuring, previous observations made by leading journals warn that the risk of 'big misses', resulting from selective editorial policies, remains a real possibility. We will therefore continue to maintain a high degree of alertness and will periodically track the history of manuscripts rejected by NDT, particularly papers that are rejected at triage by our journal.

The February 2015 issue of ckj started a new era with renewed efforts to be useful to the training and practicing nephrologists and a new focus on Clinical and Translational Nephrology. Four years later, it has become a truly global journal with contributors and readers from all over the world. The increase in quality of the published material has resulted in a nearly exponential growth of citations. Since 2016, ckj is listed in the new Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) database from Clarivate Analytics and from January 2019 it will be listed in the full Science Citation Index. ckj will therefore receive its first official impact factor based upon 2018 citation to 2016 and 2017 articles. While no official impact factor was awarded for 2017, the estimated impact factors calculated from data available in Clarivate’s Web of Science database rose to 2.987 in 2017, which would correspond to an estimated journal impact factor percentile of 72.4% in the Urology and Nephrology field.

The year 2021 was the last full year of Alberto Ortiz’s editorship at Clinical Kidney Journal (CKJ). On May 2022, Maria José Soler will start her term as the Editor-in-Chief. Over these years, CKJ obtained its first journal impact factor and has consolidated its position among the top journals in the field, consistently ranking among the top 25% (first quartile) journals in Urology and Nephrology. The 2020 journal impact factor rose to 4.45, becoming the top open access journal in Nephrology and the ninth ranked Nephrology journal overall. We now review the recent history of the journal and the most highly cited topics which include the epidemiology of kidney disease, chronic kidney disease topics, such as the assessment and treatment of chronic kidney disease, onconephrology, cardionephrology, glomerular disease, transplantation and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).