You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
State of the journal report
  1. I B Pless
  1. Montreal Children’s Hospital and McGill University, Montreal, Canada
  1. Correspondence to:
 Professor Pless;
 barry.pless{at}mcgill.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.9.3.193

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Statistics tell the tale

    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 year since the journal moved to a web based system of submissions and reviews, as well as an opportunity to view all material online. Although I have commented previously on how this has …

    View Full Text