Citations to Acta Physiologica increase dramatically, reflecting the quality of the studies published. The build‐up of citations to Acta Physiologica since 2008 is seen in Figure 1. The 2019 ranking of Acta Physiologica remains constant, topping the list of those journals that publish articles from the entire field of physiology. When adding review journals and specialized journals in physiology (eg Journal of Pineal Research ), Acta Physiologica is still the number eight of 81 journals in the physiology category. For the latest 3 years, the impact factor (2019:5.54) is stable between five and six.1, 2

As Acta Physiologica is becoming increasingly popular, submissions surge,3, 4 allowing for a growing body of articles being published; in particular original articles. The stride at which more articles appear takes its toll on the impact factor. Why is this so? The impact factor looks back on the citations received over the last 2 years. Newer articles have less time to gather citation than the older, meaning that growing journals are at a disadvantage to declining journals. Many traditional journals are receiving fewer submissions and their published materials are experiencing a dramatic decline. For several prestigious journals in physiology, published items have dropped by 40% over the last decade. Acta Physiologica is fortunate to be among the few journals to attract ever more manuscripts, although without such growth, the impact factor would even be more impressive.

Reviews commonly receive more citations than original articles. In Acta Physiologica , published original articles outpace the number of printed reviews. Yet, the dent in the impact factor caused by this effect is minimal because of the increasing quality of our original articles. The original articles are narrowing the citation gap to the reviews. Median citations to reviews are currently only one higher citation value than for original articles (2019). Last year, reviews outdistanced original articles by more than two. Still, the extremely popular reviews leave their mark. For the last two years, the top‐of‐the‐list reviews in Acta Physiology are in the field of cardiovascular medicine5 and the kidney.6-8 One cardiovascular review gathered over 50 citations to date.9

On behalf of all Acta Physiologica editors, I thank our authors for making Acta Physiologica so special.

生理学报的引文急剧增加，反映了已发表研究的质量。图1中显示了自2008年以来对《生理学报》的引用的积累情况。2019年《生理学报》的排名保持不变，在那些发表整个生理学领域期刊的期刊中居于首位。当添加生理学的评论期刊和专业期刊（例如Journal of Pineal Research）时，Acta Physiologica仍然是生理学类别的81种期刊中的第八位。最近3年，影响因子（2019：5.54）在5到6之间稳定。一二

随着生理学报变得越来越流行，投稿数量激增，3，4允许发表越来越多的文章。特别是原创文章。影响更多的文章出现在大步前进上。为什么会这样呢？影响因素回顾了过去两年中收到的引用。较之较旧的文章，较新的文章收集引文的时间更少，这意味着不断增长的期刊相对于期刊数量下降具有不利的地位。许多传统期刊的投稿数量减少，其出版材料急剧下降。在过去的十年中，对于一些著名的生理学期刊而言，已发表的论文下降了40％。生理学报幸运的是，它是为数不多的吸引越来越多手稿的期刊之一，尽管没有这种增长，其影响因素甚至会更加令人印象深刻。

评论通常比原始文章获得更多的引用。在《生理学报》中，发表的原创文章超过了印刷评论的数量。但是，由于我们原创文章的质量不断提高，因此这种影响所造成的影响因素的影响微乎其微。原始文章缩小了评论的引文差距。目前，对评论的中位引用仅比原始文章（2019年）高一个引用值。去年，评论超过原始文章的评论超过了2条。尽管如此，极受欢迎的评论仍留下了自己的印记。在过去的两年中，《Acta生理学》中最受关注的评论是心血管医学5和肾脏领域。6-8迄今为止，一项心血管评论收集了50多次引用。9

我谨代表Acta Physiologica的所有编辑，感谢我们的作者使Acta Physiologica如此特别。