Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2013

Pennell, Dudley J.; Baksi, A. John; Kilner, Philip J.; Mohiaddin, Raad H.; Prasad, Sanjay; Alpendurada, Francisco; Babu‐Narayan, Sonya V.; Neubauer, Stefan; Firmin, David

doi:10.1186/s12968-014-0100-2

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 203 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are always papers which do not fall into simple categories. This section pulls together such varia which has included interventional CMR techniques, [ 194 – 196 ] reviews, [ 197 – 199 ] cost-effectiveness, [ 200 ] clinical decision making, [ 201 ] society reports, [ 202 – 204 ] corrections, [ 205 ] registries, [ 206 – 208 ] and novel techniques [ 209 , 210 ].…”

Section: Variamentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2014

Pennell¹,

Baksi²,

Prasad³

et al. 2015

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There were 102 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2014, which is a 6 % decrease on the 109 articles published in 2013. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The 2013 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2014) fell to 4.72 from 5.11 for 2012 (as published in June 2013). The 2013 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2011 and 2012 were cited on average 4.72 times in 2013. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, the progress of the journal’s impact over the last 5 years has been impressive. Our acceptance rate is <25 % and has been falling because the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors have felt that it is useful once per calendar year to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, so that areas of interest can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality papers to JCMR for publication.

show abstract

Section: Variamentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2014

Pennell¹,

Baksi²,

Prasad³

et al. 2015

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Journals may include acceptance rate in their web site (e.g. http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/site/about/) or publish this information as part of an annual review [8], but most do not publish acceptance rates, possibly because prospective authors could be discouraged by a low acceptance rate. In contrast, it seems clear that many prospective authors need more guidance about manuscript submission [9][10][11], and knowing how many manuscripts are rejected might help stimulate efforts to submit better quality manuscripts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer‐reviewed journals in 2012

Lamb

Adams

2014

Equine Veterinary Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

17Reasons for performing study. Relatively few journals publish their annual acceptance rate, 18 although this figure is of scientific and academic interest. 19Objectives. To determine the acceptance rate for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer-20 reviewed journals during 2012 and to determine the proportions of submitted manuscripts 21 that were accepted without revision, accepted after revision or rejected. 22Study design. Self-reporting questionnaire distributed to editorial contacts and returned by 23Email with data submission by insertion into a template. 24Methods. Editors of 118 peer-reviewed journals listed in the Web of Science in the subject 25 category veterinary sciences were invited by Email to submit data pertinent to manuscripts 26 submitted to their journal in 2012. 27Results. Data were received from 30 (26%) journals. Average (±SD) acceptance rate was 28 47% (±15%). On average 3% (±5%) submitted manuscripts were accepted without revision, 29 44% (±15%) manuscripts were accepted after revision, 4% (±4%) manuscripts were 30 withdrawn by authors, 46% (±17%) manuscripts were rejected and 3% (±5%) manuscripts 31 were still pending at the end of the study period. 32Conclusions. With so few manuscripts accepted without revision, prospective authors must 33 expect to expend time and effort revising and resubmitting their manuscripts for publication. 34Although authors are frequently able to correct manuscript flaws identified by reviewers, the 35 knowledge that less than half submitted manuscripts are accepted might help stimulate 36 prospective authors to try to submit better quality manuscripts. 37 3 Introduction 38

show abstract