I trained in Trinity College, Dublin, and did my MD there in multiple sclerosis, so that’s where I got my interest. I came to London in 1985 to finish my training, and like many I never went home. In London I advanced both clinically and academically.

“...the whole spectrum of multiple sclerosis is covered in the journal, right from the basic science to rehabilitation and quality of life.”

My other area of interest is neurological rehabilitation. I became research director for that area, and am now the Clinical Director of the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery.

Multiple Sclerosis is a young journal, and I think people like that aspect. It’s only been around 12 years or so, and I am the third editor-in-chief. Prior to its being launched, there were no multiple sclerosis journals.

Of course, there were there were a number of neurology journals, but it’s fair to say that in MS clinical research in therapeutics didn’t get a lot of attention in 1980s or the early 1990s. Then treatments were developed, with the consequence that research publications in the field have gone up exponentially over the last few years. The timing of the journal coincided with an ever-increasing interest in the subject.

The other thing is that the community of multiple sclerosis researchers is quite tightly knit. This is an international field with research organizations around the world. We work well together and are good at networking.

This means for me, as an active researcher, that when I want to ask people to do articles for the journal they tend to do so. By this means, the pro-active commissioning of papers and reviews, the quality of the journal has increased over the years, and so has the attention it is receiving.

Very important. For example, the main European meeting is attended by up to 4,000 people. There are a number of smaller meetings, too. Our community is not competitive. In terms of social dynamics, it’s as if everyone knows what others are doing and are keen to work collaboratively. This aspect of positive inquisitiveness has boosted the journal.

Yes, that’s part of it. But there has been a major improvement in the journal over the past 10 years. The early journals were thin and basic. We’ve attracted higher-quality papers, and our rejection rate for papers has gone up—both of which indicate how successful we now are. If you look at the journal now compared even to five years ago, there is a marked difference.

I’d like to add another point that helps the citation index: we are getting authors to do reviews, and our editorials are from established experts in the field.

Yes, it was developed over the past three years. The other point is that the whole spectrum of multiple sclerosis is covered in the journal, right from the basic science to rehabilitation and quality of life. We have broad interests, which should help the citations. Our coverage is much broader than it was four or five years ago.

The biggest change has been the treatment. Multiple sclerosis has gone from being an untreatable condition to one that has three or four drugs which are partially effective. So that changes how people are treated and also increases the interest in the research.

Because researchers are now aware that their paper may be read be people with a strong interest in multiple sclerosis, they are inclined to come straight to us, rather then trying a more general neurology journal. So novel treatments are increasing the readers’ interest.

We have also had a big leap forward with our understanding of the disease, so that has helped us too. Also there have been improvements in the management of the disease by patients—some patients and patient organizations do look out for this journal.

They slow the frequency of the attacks. Multiple sclerosis has relapses and remissions and then progressive disability. The current drugs reduce the attacks by about a third.

In the last couple of years there have been some new drugs which have been more effective, but they have produced rare but serious side effects. That marks a new era in research. Most of the drugs at the moment suppress inflammation.

The real keys to the future are the areas of neuroprotection and repair. On those topics there is a huge area of activity that is being published.

The main thing is the way the journal brings the research community together and also demands reviewing of papers at the very highest level. I can send a paper to any of the world experts and they will review it for me. So Multiple Sclerosis is held in high regard by the research community.

Yes, I think so. On the editorial board we have many of the key people in the world of MS. We change the board regularly to bring in young people. We have a strong presence at conferences and meetings.

In a novel move, I’m trying to link the journal with the more political MS associations, so if they wish to make a statement or bring out guidelines we’re very happy to take that on.

We are seeing stronger papers on clinical trials and more cutting-edge neuroscience. I think that needs to be stronger than it is at the moment, and we also need to move one step up again in the impact factor. We get lots of papers on the management and quality of life, but we need to strengthen the basic science.

The breakdown is 60% European, 30% American, and 10% Australasian. Researchers in every European country submit to us. The balance between North American (30%) and Europe (60%) is interesting. One of the reasons may be that the journal Neurology in North America publishes every two weeks. That takes a lot of papers that I would like to get in our journal. I would like to work up to being able to compete with it.

That is one of the things we are working towards. We need to be more responsive and get online publication within weeks of acceptance, which will make a huge difference. We’ve had electronic submission for the past 18 months, but came to it quite late. However, we’ve moved in the last six months to electronic submission only, so that transformation has taken place.

It is the only journal with the name Multiple Sclerosis. It’s a good journal that could be and will be better. We have a great following with a lot of potential. It’s very exciting developing it as I have seen it evolve over the past five years, and development will continue so that we can serve the community even more effectively.