Letters Better performance metrics for the MJA TO THE EDITOR : There is indeed a lot to “like” about the MJA in recent years,1 including a much-improved website, a defined space for the humanities, and the Journal’s courage in publishing articles that critique the performance of organisations and institutions. 2-4 However, the MJA’s reporting of its own performance could be improved. For a decade, the Journal has reported the number of manuscripts submitted in each article category, the percentage of manuscripts accepted, and the average time to acceptance or rejection for all articles and research articles. As important as the time to acceptance or rejection is the time to print or online publication for accepted articles. It is the raison d’être of a journal to disseminate knowledge. Such transfer takes place only when work can be read, criticised or built on by the medical community. A journal which accepts or rejects articles within 3 months and takes a further 9 months to publish arguably performs more poorly than one which takes 5 months to make a decision and 3 months to then publish. Knowing this publication metric is important for the MJA and potential authors in the rapidly changing world of publishing. Online journals are becoming undeniably worthy competitors — 18 months ago PLOS Medicine overtook the BMJ as the fifth-ranked general medical journal by impact factor, and retained this position ahead of Annals of Internal Medicine in the latest rankings.5 The BMJ now publishes research article summaries in print issues, with full articles published online, allowing for more articles in each print issue.
172
MJA 199 (3) · 5 August 2013
It would also be ideal to report the time from initial MJA submission to decision to send to peer review or reject. Interestingly, the CMAJ uses this metric as a “service standard”.6 Finally, consistent with research and audit practice, some journals provide the range of times together with the mean to convey a full picture of performance.7 I urge the MJA to consider reporting the above metrics in the future and quantitatively surveying stakeholders on their views of the Journal’s strengths and weaknesses. Such data will provide important details that a crude “like” cannot, and thus help the MJA remain the region’s premier medical journal in its second century.
“
As important as the time to acceptance or rejection is the time to print or online publication for accepted articles
”
Kevat
Dev A S Kevat Clinical Research Fellow, 1 and PhD Candidate2 1 Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK. 2 Department of Public Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC.
[email protected] Competing interests: I have acted as a peer reviewer for Annals of Internal Medicine.
doi: 10.5694/mja13.10084 1 Medical Journal of Australia. How much do you
2
3 4
5 6
7
“like” the MJA [editorial]? Med J Aust 2012; 197: 600-602. McGee RG, Webster AC, Rogerson TE, Craig JC. Medical device regulation in Australia: safe and effective? Med J Aust 2012; 196: 256-260. Grills NJ. The ethics of industry sponsorship of charities. Med J Aust 2012; 197: 139. Williams MJ, Kevat DAS, Loff B. Conflict of interest guidelines for clinical guidelines. Med J Aust 2011; 195: 442-445. Thomas Reuters. Journal citation reports, 2010. New York: Thomas Reuters, 2011. CMAJ. Advantages of submitting your manuscript to CMAJ. http://www.cmaj.ca/site/authors/ advantages.xhtml (accessed Jul 2013). BMJ Journals. Why publish with BMJ Journals? http://journals.bmj.com/site/authors/author❏ benefits.xhtml (accessed Jan 2013).
IN REPLY: Thank you for your endorsement of the MJA’s “likeability”. We agree that the total time from submission to online or print publication is an important consideration for intending authors
“
the gold standard . . . is to publish research articles online as soon as they are accepted and edited
”
Kappagoda et al
and a meaningful journal metric. Currently, our manuscript submission system, which collates publishing statistics, does not have the capability to inform our team of the mean time from submission to publication or from acceptance to publication. However, we are in the process of transitioning to a new manuscript submission system that may have the capability to produce more detailed publishing statistics. Once this issue is addressed, we would be willing to report such statistics in the MJA, so that readers may assess for themselves the Journal’s performance. We also agree that the gold standard in this area is to publish research articles online as soon as they are accepted and edited, with later allocation to a print issue. The MJA is moving towards this model. Rapidity in the “first pass” decision to review or reject is an important service to authors. In the period 2011–2012, the average time to reject was 33 days. In the past 12 months, we have sought to address this issue by offering a rapid abstract assessment facility for full papers, and by implementing an initial “screen” of every manuscript by a Senior Deputy Editor within a few days of its receipt. We look forward to consequent improvement in this metric. We welcome feedback from our stakeholders. If the MJA remains valued and adequately resourced, we believe we can indeed remain the region’s premier medical Journal and meet the standards set by our international colleagues. Astika K Kappagoda Deputy Editor Ruth Armstrong Senior Deputy Editor Medical Journal of Australia, Sydney, NSW.
[email protected] Competing interests: We are both employed by the Australasian Medical Publishing Company, which operates the Medical Journal of Australia.
doi: 10.5694/mja13.10753
❏
172
MJA 199 (3) · 5 August 2013
It would also be ideal to report the time from initial MJA submission to decision to send to peer review or reject. Interestingly, the CMAJ uses this metric as a “service standard”.6 Finally, consistent with research and audit practice, some journals provide the range of times together with the mean to convey a full picture of performance.7 I urge the MJA to consider reporting the above metrics in the future and quantitatively surveying stakeholders on their views of the Journal’s strengths and weaknesses. Such data will provide important details that a crude “like” cannot, and thus help the MJA remain the region’s premier medical journal in its second century.
“
As important as the time to acceptance or rejection is the time to print or online publication for accepted articles
”
Kevat
Dev A S Kevat Clinical Research Fellow, 1 and PhD Candidate2 1 Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK. 2 Department of Public Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC.
[email protected] Competing interests: I have acted as a peer reviewer for Annals of Internal Medicine.
doi: 10.5694/mja13.10084 1 Medical Journal of Australia. How much do you
2
3 4
5 6
7
“like” the MJA [editorial]? Med J Aust 2012; 197: 600-602. McGee RG, Webster AC, Rogerson TE, Craig JC. Medical device regulation in Australia: safe and effective? Med J Aust 2012; 196: 256-260. Grills NJ. The ethics of industry sponsorship of charities. Med J Aust 2012; 197: 139. Williams MJ, Kevat DAS, Loff B. Conflict of interest guidelines for clinical guidelines. Med J Aust 2011; 195: 442-445. Thomas Reuters. Journal citation reports, 2010. New York: Thomas Reuters, 2011. CMAJ. Advantages of submitting your manuscript to CMAJ. http://www.cmaj.ca/site/authors/ advantages.xhtml (accessed Jul 2013). BMJ Journals. Why publish with BMJ Journals? http://journals.bmj.com/site/authors/author❏ benefits.xhtml (accessed Jan 2013).
IN REPLY: Thank you for your endorsement of the MJA’s “likeability”. We agree that the total time from submission to online or print publication is an important consideration for intending authors
“
the gold standard . . . is to publish research articles online as soon as they are accepted and edited
”
Kappagoda et al
and a meaningful journal metric. Currently, our manuscript submission system, which collates publishing statistics, does not have the capability to inform our team of the mean time from submission to publication or from acceptance to publication. However, we are in the process of transitioning to a new manuscript submission system that may have the capability to produce more detailed publishing statistics. Once this issue is addressed, we would be willing to report such statistics in the MJA, so that readers may assess for themselves the Journal’s performance. We also agree that the gold standard in this area is to publish research articles online as soon as they are accepted and edited, with later allocation to a print issue. The MJA is moving towards this model. Rapidity in the “first pass” decision to review or reject is an important service to authors. In the period 2011–2012, the average time to reject was 33 days. In the past 12 months, we have sought to address this issue by offering a rapid abstract assessment facility for full papers, and by implementing an initial “screen” of every manuscript by a Senior Deputy Editor within a few days of its receipt. We look forward to consequent improvement in this metric. We welcome feedback from our stakeholders. If the MJA remains valued and adequately resourced, we believe we can indeed remain the region’s premier medical Journal and meet the standards set by our international colleagues. Astika K Kappagoda Deputy Editor Ruth Armstrong Senior Deputy Editor Medical Journal of Australia, Sydney, NSW.
[email protected] Competing interests: We are both employed by the Australasian Medical Publishing Company, which operates the Medical Journal of Australia.
doi: 10.5694/mja13.10753
❏
