|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
EDITORIAL |
| Editorial |
Montreal Childrens Hospital and McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Correspondence to:
Professor Pless;
barry.pless@mcgill.ca
Keywords: statistics; journal report
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Journals are judged in many ways depending on who is doing the assessment. Obviously, what is important for readers is not often the same as what matters most to authors. Readers want high quality, timely, well written material, presented in a pleasing format. Some readers are only interested in topics in which they have a special interest; others have broader tastes. Authors want prompt decisions based on detailed, thoughtful, and fair reviews. If their paper is accepted, they want rapid publication. Some authors are bewitched by impact factors; others are willing to accept their own assessment of the quality of journals to which they send their papers. A third constituency that editors ignore at their peril is reviewers. I assume they want a system that is easy to use, that provides good feedback, and one in which they are assured their opinions are valued.
It is just over one
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |