| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Year in Review: My How Time Flies! |
Berquist.Thomas{at}mayo.edu
Time is the most undefinable yet paradoxical of things; the past is gone, the future is not come, and the present becomes the past even while we attempt to define it, and, like the flash of lightning, at once exists and expires.—Charles Caleb Colton
Unbelievable: I'm entering the second year as Editor in Chief of the American Journal of Roentgenology. The first year passed so quickly. This leads me to step back and reflect on what has been accomplished. What lessons have we learned? What steps have we taken and what steps do we need to take to ensure continued improvement in our journal?
In my initial Editor's Notebook I addressed the challenges and opportunities facing the journal [1, 2]. We entered a new era in July 2008 with a distributed editorial structure consisting of 11 subspecialty section editors and two special consulting editors. Dr. Felix S. Chew continued as section editor for AJR II. Each section editor selected assistant editors with the appropriate expertise to ensure that the subspecialty was optimally represented. Job descriptions were developed for the section editors and the assistants. Each section editor was given more primary responsibility for his/her section.
I am pleased to report that the new structure is working extremely well. The subspecialty expertise has improved the coverage and depth of knowledge in the sections. In addition, the new structure has permitted us to develop highlighted issues that will rotate through the sections in sequence each year. The highlighted issues began in January 2009 with a focus on Neuroradiology/Head and Neck Imaging. This was accomplished under the experienced leadership of Dr. James M. Provenzale. Focused issues include solicited reviews and "hot topic" original research articles designed to provide current and "need-to-know" information for our readers.
Consistent and ongoing communication is critical for our new structure. I meet with the AJR office staff weekly to discuss current and future issues. In addition, we hold monthly meetings with the section editors. These meetings provide a forum to discuss issues within each section as well as the current and future direction for the journal.
Mission and Vision Statements
Mission and vision statements were developed early to keep us focused as we work to become the "must-read journal" for radiology:
AJR Mission Statement
The mission of the AJR is to further the knowledge and
professionalism of radiologists, radiologists in training, medical physicists,
scientists, and associated health professionals through print and online
resources that transform practice, education, research, and patient care.
AJR Vision Statement
The AJR will be the primary source for practicing physicians and
allied health professionals engaged in patient-centered imaging. By optimizing
delivery using online, print, and other media, the AJR will enhance
radiology training, practice, patient care, professionalism, research, and
lifelong learning.
Strategic Planning
We also just held our first face-to-face strategic planning session in Boston in April, which will be an annual event scheduled in conjunction with the American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) meeting. This planning session provided the platform for review of the past year, including manuscript and reviewer data, turnaround time, goal selection, and vision for the future. The section editors and I selected three goals on which to focus our efforts: 1, improving the impact factor; 2, increasing subscriptions to and readership of AJR; and 3, providing a forum for the exchange of medical knowledge, best practices, controversies in health care, and modernization of patient care using imaging technology. Development of these goals was a large task, indeed. We now will work to establish metrics to measure our progress and, hopefully, our success.
The recent strategic planning session facilitated a review of the past year and of new or potentially new changes for AJR that are on the horizon. We began by reviewing the job descriptions for our new distributed structure and, as noted above, we agreed the system is working. However, when discussing the reviewer data and manuscript submissions, we were reminded of the significance of our international relationships. We have a total of 1,827 reviewers (1,396 from the United States and 431 from the international community). This mix is important. There are some 1,800 manuscripts submitted to the journal each year; 52% are from international authors and 48% are from the United States. Therefore, to further recognize and enhance our international relationships, the section editors elected to add an international assistant editor to each section.
Data on major paper submissions, including original research, review articles, perspectives, and pictorial essays (our readership's four favorite categories), showed growth in original research submissions from 850 manuscripts in 2007 to over 1,000 in 2008. These data highlighted two areas that deserve more discussion: first, the manuscript category changes made in April 2009 and, second, the impact factor. Improving the impact factor was the first goal selected at our strategic planning meeting.
Changes to Author Guidelines
Manuscript category changes were made to simplify the choices for authors, to provide more citable articles (which will help improve the impact factor), and to meet the requests voiced in our last readership survey [3]. Prior to April of this year, there were 12 manuscript categories. We reduced that number to seven by, for example, deleting illustrated letters to the editor, as these were really case reports. The journal stopped accepting case reports in November 2005 [4]. Technical Innovations remains as a category, but Computers in Radiology was added to this manuscript category and deleted as an individual manuscript type. This expanded the scope of Technical Innovations to include computers, specific techniques or procedures, and software applications. Radiologic-Pathologic Conferences also was deleted. However, these manuscripts still can be submitted as Pictorial Essays if they meet the guideline criteria. Clinical Observations has been redefined as Clinical Perspectives.
Impact Factor
The impact factor measures the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal is cited in a particular period (1-5 years). It has been used to measure the importance of a given journal to its field. Though controversial, it is a commonly used measure of journal quality. The AJR impact factor has hovered around 2 since 1997. In recent years, the impact factor has been slowly increasing. Thanks to the leadership of Drs. Lee F. Rogers and Robert J. Stanley, our last two Editors in Chief, the impact factor reached 2.47 in 2007. This is compared to 5.56 for Radiology, 3.41 four European Radiology, and 2.54 for RadioGraphics. Impact factor data place AJR at number 27 on the list of 87 international radiology journals.
Eigenfactor Score
Dr. Charles Kahn, Chair of the ARRS Publication Committee, recently provided data for AJR using a different system. The Eigenfactor Score (EF) is a measure of the overall value provided by all the articles published in a given journal in a year. Using this measure, AJR is ranked third behind Radiology (1) and the International Journal of Radiation Oncology (2). Regardless of the method used, we are working on methods to continually improve AJR's impact and significance for our readership and, going forward, hope to extend our value beyond the imaging fields. Improvement in the impact factor is already being facilitated by solicitation of focused reviews and "hot topic" original research for our new highlighted issues.
New Tools for Our Reviewers
Communication with our readers, reviewers, and authors is critical. In the November 2008 Editor's Notebook, we highlighted the importance of all the participants involved in the peer review process [2]. The quality of our reviewers and the careful double-blinded process protect and enhance the integrity of the articles accepted in our journal. Consistency in the review process is critical. To help our reviewers do the best job possible, this year we posted assistive material for them on the ARRS Website (www.arrs.org/Publications/AJR/Reviewer.aspx). These materials include a Reviewer Grid describing factors to consider for major and minor revision, Guidelines for Reviewers, James M. Provenzale's Reviewer Template, and the landmark paper by James M. Provenzale and Robert J. Stanley describing the key steps required for proper review of manuscripts [5]. Additional materials will be added to this Website as they become available. In addition, at this year's ARRS Reviewer Luncheon, Dr. James M. Provenzale provided a session on the critical key points that should routinely be used by our reviewers.
Key factors in the success of the journal are the timeliness of its content and rapid turnaround of submitted manuscripts. The review process begins with a technical check by the ARRS office staff (1.4 days), submission to the editor, reviewer invitation by the section editors (average: 7.1 days), and time to first decision. The time to first decision has been reduced from 36.6 days in 2008 to 26 days in 2009. We also are discussing potential processes for key original research manuscripts that deserve to be "released ahead of print" or provided with immediate open access.
On the Horizon
What's on the horizon for AJR?
We are beginning to roll out the Residents' Section in this issue of AJR. A preliminary resident survey indicated that there were multiple areas of interest including focused review articles, patterns of the month, PQI, top 10 hot topics in our new sections, and more. The changes in resident training and the new examination structure provide more opportunities for AJR to assist our radiology trainees to prepare for their future. We look forward to input from our residents and fellows to optimize and expand the content of this section.
We want to give you, our readers, optimal balance and quality in each section of the journal to meet your information and continuing education needs. For example, the role of Medical Physics and Informatics will be increasingly critical due to the new residency training requirements and the new Maintenance of Certification (MOC) process. We also want to increase the content in Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging and in Pediatric Imaging.
In January 2010, Dr. Howard Forman will begin the Masters in Radiology series with an expert panel providing in-depth coverage of controversial issues in radiology. This partially addresses goal number three (providing a venue to discuss controversies in health care) from our recent strategic planning meeting. The timing is perfect with the newly approved integration of the ARRS and the American College of Radiology. We have only begun to discuss the resulting potential benefits to the members of both organizations. We invite your comments and suggestions for potential ARRS/ACR collaborations and new educational offerings.
Finally, we must all continue to serve as mentors to our authors, reviewers, and editors to ensure continued quality improvement to achieve our mission and vision for the future [6].
References
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. H. Berquist More New Challenges and Opportunities Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2009; 193(6): 1471 - 1472. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
