The editor-in-chief plays a vital role in ensuring a journal’s scientific integrity and quality. Their primary responsibilities include managing the peer-review process, selecting qualified reviewers, and making final decisions on manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection. In cases of scientific misconduct, conflicts of interest, authorship disputes, or ethical concerns, the editor has the ultimate authority. An editor’s vision for the journal shapes which manuscripts are reviewed and accepted, influencing the journal’s academic direction. While the role offers benefits such as scientific prestige, greater research visibility, and financial compensation, it also entails significant ethical responsibilities. Academic editor malpractice refers to any actions that violate ethical standards or compromises the integrity of the peer-review process. Editors typically serve five-year terms, often with the possibility of renewal, and are frequently evaluated based on the journal’s impact factor trend. However, their role extends beyond editorial duties—they act as gatekeepers, literary agents, accountants, mediators, and judges, navigating the complex relationships among authors, reviewers, and publishers. Editors of major journals hold an extraordinary amount of power within the publication process. They act as an umpire to judge the scientific research that is being published. Like an umpire, they must know about the sport and rules of play, but they themselves should never be in the competition. The problem is that this ideal is not always met. Whether the subject is the efficacy of an antihypertensive drug, the value of a new costly biomarker, or the origin of a pandemic, editors often make decisions for multi-parametric—and also extra-scientific—reasons. On this basis, some papers are published while others are declined, and the stream of scientific evidence can be polluted. In summary, the editor-in-chief is a cornerstone of academic publishing, ensuring that scientific quality and integrity are upheld while balancing multiple responsibilities.

Infective endocarditis (IE) remains a challenging diagnosis, particularly in patients with prosthetic valves, cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), or nonspecific presentations. With rising rates of healthcare-associated and device-related infections, the need for earlier and more reliable diagnosis has become increasingly important. Multimodality imaging now plays a central role in confirming IE, identifying complications, and guiding management. Echocardiography is the initial test of choice, with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) offering better sensitivity for vegetations, leaflet perforation, and periannular extension, though its limitations in prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) have led to greater reliance on other modalities. Cardiac computed tomography (CT) provides detailed anatomical information that can reveal abscesses, pseudoaneurysms, and prosthetic dehiscence, and is frequently used for surgical planning. Functional imaging with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT (FDG-PET/CT) and white blood cell single-photon emission CT/CT (WBC-SPECT/CT) improves diagnostic accuracy in PVE and CIED infections while also detecting systemic embolic events. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become an important tool to uncover neurologic complications, including silent emboli and mycotic aneurysms. This review summarizes the strengths and limitations of each modality, outlines a stepwise approach to imaging decisions, and considers how findings should be incorporated into overall clinical care. This review also highlights surgical indications, evolving antimicrobial strategies, and the future role of standardized imaging protocols. Taken together, thoughtful use of multimodality imaging is critical to improving outcomes in patients with suspected or confirmed IE.

Aim: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is a widely accepted and effective treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF). Even though success rates have been climbing, some patients experience AF recurrence after ablation. This study aimed to identify predictors of AF recurrence, with a focus on the potential role of premature atrial contractions (PAC). Methods: A retrospective single-center analysis was conducted on 185 patients with AF who underwent primo PVI at a single center between 07/2014 and 01/2017. Patients underwent AF ablation using radiofrequency ablation (n = 61), by the CARTO (n = 50) and EnSite (n = 11) mapping systems, and the endoscopic laser balloon (n = 124). Exclusion criteria were combined procedures or the absence of a 24-hour Holter recording three months post-ablation. The primary endpoint was freedom from atrial arrhythmia 12 months after ablation with an application of a 90-day blanking period. Results: Survival analysis revealed a significant difference in AF recurrence rates between low and high PAC burden groups (log-rank test, p = 0.004). ROC-analysis identified an optimal PAC burden cut-off of 57 PAC’s over 24 hours (AUC 0.69). This association remained significant in multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, with a hazard ratio of 3.38 (p = 0.021). Conclusions: PAC burden measured on 24-hour Holter monitoring at three months proved to be an independent predictor of AF recurrence following PVI. Multivariable analysis confirmed a significant hazard ratio of 3.38 for AF recurrence within one year. An optimal predictive threshold of 57 PAC demonstrated high negative predictive value for AF recurrence.