While authorship practices can vary across different disciplines, authorship should reflect the individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the research project, take public responsibility for the paper’s content, and agree to its submission for publication. In real life, the article is usually authored by at least one truly genuine author and some parasitic authors. The first author and the last author are especially important. The middle authors are less important, and their participation is often wrongly seen as an inconsequential decorative favor. The honorary author, a gift or guest author, is added as a bonus to please someone higher in the hierarchy than the submitting author. This practice is believed to enhance the chances of publication, but usually, the excess of honorary authors will make reviewers more critical. A ghost author contributed substantially but it does not appear in the list of authors to avoid declaring an overt conflict of interest. The gold author is someone paid by a third party in direct or indirect forms, and capable of writing and signing everything asked by the payer, including overstating the merits of a new drug or ignoring its drawbacks. A fake author does not exist, and while it may seem humorous it is a breach of scientific integrity and can lead to serious consequences for the individuals involved. With Chat-generative pre-trained transformer (Chat-GPT), artificial intelligence may contribute decisively to the article content and presentation. Overall, it is important to maintain high standards of integrity and transparency in authorship practices to ensure that research findings are trustworthy and reliable. The reputation of your work is in the hands of your coauthors, so choose them carefully and make sure they share your commitment to scientific integrity.

Pulmonary congestion is a key determinant of heart failure, but for a long time it has been an elusive target for the clinical cardiologist in the pre-B-line era, despite research efforts of Carlo Giuntini, a pneumologist who attempted the quantification of lung water in the seventies with too insensitive chest X-ray lung water score, too cumbersome nuclear medicine, and too complex invasive thermodilution techniques. Daniel Lichtenstein, is a French intensivist who first discovered lung ultrasound as a sign of extravascular lung water in 1997. B-lines (also known as ultrasound lung comets) detectable by lung ultrasound arise from the pleural line, extend towards the edge of the screen, and move synchronously with respiration. In cardiology, B-lines were introduced in 2004 and are now the dominant technique for research applications and clinical purposes. B-lines showed a prognostic value in several clinical scenarios, largely independent and additive over echocardiographic predictors such as ejection fraction. The methodology became user-friendly in the last years, with a reduction of the scanning sites from the original 28 to a simplified 4-site scan now extracting information on lung water in < 1 minute. More recently, B-lines were also studied during physical and pharmacological stress. Signs of pulmonary congestion are found during stress in 1 out of 3 all-comers with normal findings at rest. Artificial intelligence applied to ultrasound and clinical data allows for the detection of B lines, their quantification, and the assessment of their nature. The B-lines phenotype can cluster around different endotypes: dry (in systemic sclerosis and lung interstitial fibrosis); wet (water); sterile (as in cardiogenic edema); infective (as in COVID-19 and interstitial pneumonia); right heart-sided (as in pulmonary arterial hypertension); left-heart sided (as in heart failure or valvular heart disease). Artificial intelligence B-lines and pocket-size insonation of the B-lines-driven decongestion therapy are now on the horizon.

Cardiovascular diseases, particularly ischemic heart disease (IHD), are the leading cause of mortality globally, accounting for 16% of deaths. Effective management of ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) is crucial, as outlined in the latest European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). The guidelines emphasize a structured approach comprising four key steps: a general clinical evaluation to exclude non-cardiac causes, cardiac examination, and likelihood estimation using echocardiography, diagnostic testing such as stress echocardiography and coronary CT angiography, and treatment involving lifestyle changes and medication, alongside potential revascularization. The review underscores the importance of coronary angiography and functional assessments in diagnosing ischemic heart failure (IHF) and guiding treatment strategies. Non-invasive imaging techniques, including stress echocardiography and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, are valuable for assessing ischemia and myocardial viability while reducing unnecessary invasive procedures. Coronary CT angiography is also examined for its procedural advantages and risks. A comparative analysis of diagnostic modalities highlights the strengths and limitations of each technique, emphasizing the need for individualized approaches based on patient characteristics. The ESC 2024 guidelines advocate for a patient-centered imaging strategy based on the likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD) while addressing the economic and environmental impacts of imaging practices. Overall, implementing these guidelines and leveraging diverse imaging modalities can optimize management strategies for IHD, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is a major global health issue, frequently resulting in myocardial infarction and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Prompt and precise diagnosis is essential to avert complications such as heart failure and sudden cardiac death. Although invasive coronary angiography remains the gold standard for high-risk patients, noninvasive multimodality imaging is becoming more prevalent for those at low-to-intermediate risk. This review evaluated the current state of multimodality imaging in IHD, including echocardiography, nuclear cardiology, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT) angiography, and invasive coronary angiography. Each modality has distinct strengths and limitations, and their complementary use provides a comprehensive assessment of cardiac health. Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into imaging workflows holds promise for enhancing diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. AI algorithms can optimize image acquisition, processing, and interpretation of complex imaging data. Emerging technologies like 4D flow MRI, molecular imaging, and hybrid systems [e.g., positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI, PET/CT] integrate anatomical, functional, and molecular data, providing comprehensive insights into cardiac pathology and potentially revolutionizing the management of IHD. This review also explored the clinical applications and impact of multimodality imaging on patient outcomes, emphasizing its role in improving diagnostic precision and guiding therapeutic decisions. Future directions include AI-driven decision support systems and personalized medicine approaches. Addressing regulatory and ethical challenges, such as data privacy and algorithm transparency, is crucial for the broader adoption of these advanced technologies. This review highlighted the transformative potential of AI-enhanced multimodality imaging in improving the diagnosis and management of IHD.

By offering their expertise, reviewers help authors improve their work and also support editors in selecting high-quality studies, thereby reinforcing the integrity of scientific literature. Much like in a Sergio Leone film, your manuscript encounters three possible types of reviewers on its editorial journey: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The Good Reviewer is, for reasons unknown, favorably disposed toward both you and your manuscript. They find it “well-written, with literary and enjoyable style”, “original and timely”, and addressing a topic that is “scientifically and socially relevant”. Their comments are respectful, constructive, and focused on minor but meaningful improvements. Unfortunately, the Good Reviewer is as rare as a white unicorn; some researchers reach the end of their careers without ever encountering one, leading them to question their very existence. The Bad Reviewer is both bad at reviewing and a bad influence on your work. They reject your manuscript, but their reasons are vague and unconvincing. Their objections are often asinine, and when you respond thoroughly and decisively, they counter with even more nonsensical arguments. They may pressure you to cite irrelevant literature—often their work or that of their colleagues. In the end, your once-solid and cohesive manuscript emerges in a far worse state than the original. None of this would have been possible without the Bad Reviewer, who, unleashed by a negligent editor, exerts their detrimental influence on your article. The Ugly Reviewer appears with unsettling regularity—at least once a month. They believe your article is truly terrible, and often, they are right. The Ugly Reviewer, though harsh, is no fool. Their critiques are brutal and unforgiving, yet accurate. Years later, you may find yourself grateful to them for preventing you from publishing work that, in hindsight, would have irreparably tarnished your already modest scientific reputation.