Nomenclature for kidney function and disease: report of a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Consensus Conference.

The worldwide burden of kidney disease is rising, but public awareness remains limited, underscoring the need for more effective communication by stakeholders in the kidney health community. Despite this need for clarity, the nomenclature for describing kidney function and disease lacks uniformity. In June 2019, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) convened a Consensus Conference with the goal of standardizing and refining the nomenclature used in the English language to describe kidney function and disease, and of developing a glossary that could be used in scientific publications. Guiding principles of the conference were that the revised nomenclature should be patient-centered, precise, and consistent with nomenclature used in the KDIGO guidelines. Conference attendees reached general consensus on the following recommendations: (i) to use "kidney" rather than "renal" or "nephro-" when referring to kidney disease and kidney function; (ii) to use "kidney failure" with appropriate descriptions of presence or absence of symptoms, signs, and treatment, rather than "end-stage kidney disease"; (iii) to use the KDIGO definition and classification of acute kidney diseases and disorders (AKD) and acute kidney injury (AKI), rather than alternative descriptions, to define and classify severity of AKD and AKI; (iv) to use the KDIGO definition and classification of chronic kidney disease (CKD) rather than alternative descriptions to define and classify severity of CKD; and (v) to use specific kidney measures, such as albuminuria or decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR), rather than "abnormal" or "reduced" kidney function to describe alterations in kidney structure and function. A proposed 5-part glossary contains specific items for which there was general agreement. Conference attendees acknowledged limitations of the recommendations and glossary, but they considered standardization of scientific nomenclature to be essential for improving communication.

The fate of triaged and rejected manuscripts.

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.

Farewell from the CKJ Editor-in-Chief: key kidney topics from 2014 to 2021.

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).

The new Clinical Kidney Journal, 4 years later.

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.