As I pointed out in my inaugural editorial, a constant challenge as we move forward is to continue to strive to maximise the Impact Factor (IF) of the journal, whilst ensuring that the publication standards we set do not ultimately result in authors from our ORL-HNS constituency, deciding not to submit their work to the journal. I went on to state that over coming months the Editorial Team will be exploring strategies designed to address this issue of balance. As a reminder, the key metric on which the academic ‘worth’ of a journal is judged is the IF. This is a simple metric which is calculated, year on year, as the number of times articles published in a given journal in the preceding 2-year period is cited in other published articles. Thus, the numerator is the number of times a given article is cited, whilst the denominator is the number of articles published and which are included in the IF calculation. Central to this issue, with respect to Clinical Otolaryngology, is the acceptance of manuscripts as Original Articles as they are implicated in the calculation of IF. In contrast, Our Experience articles, as they constitute articles of correspondence, are not. It follows therefore that in order to maximise IF, some judgment has to be made as to the likelihood of a manuscript being cited by others as to whether it is judged worthy of publication as an Original Article. Whilst citation by others is widely accepted as being a surrogate of ‘quality’, this relationship may be oversimplified. For example, it may be that a large single-centre case series, which is of ‘low scientific quality’ may be highly cited,

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd  Clinical Otolaryngology 39, 77

EDITORIAL

Editorial

particularly, as is often the case, no randomised controlled trial relating to the subject, exists. In order to attempt to address this issue of balance, the Editorial Team has come to the following broad conclusions, whereby the following types of study will now merit peer review as Original Articles. 1 Studies from a single centre which have involved an intervention or a controlled measurement, even if comparison is made between a cohort before and after institution of the intervention. 2 Single-centre case series which can be justified as the largest ever or at least of sufficient magnitude to contribute positively to the published literature on the subject. In addition, in an important deviation from previous editorial policy, we will henceforth encourage the submission of translational research articles. These studies which are essentially laboratory based will be considered for publication as Original Articles as long as an element of clinical applicability can be demonstrated. Whether this has the desired effect of maintaining or enhancing IF whilst stimulating the submission of increasing numbers of appropriate quality manuscripts remains to be seen. It is important to stress that this is a situation that we will keep under close review. As such, we will monitor the impact of these changes closely over subsequent months and will feedback to readers in future editorials.. Professor Terry M Jones Editor-in-chief

77