Editorial III

The latest changes ... no more shorts

Jennifer M. Hunter1

1 British Journal of Anaesthesia, University Department of Anaesthesia, University Clinical Department, Duncan Building, Daulby Street, Liverpool L69 3GA, UK Email: bja{at}liv.ac.uk

As we start another new year, I wish to update you on the latest changes occurring in the British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA). You will be aware that the performance of scientific journals is arbitrarily assessed each year by the impact factor. This expresses the ratio of: the number of citations received in one year (e.g. 2002) to articles published in the journal in the previous 2 years (2000 and 2001), divided by the number of papers published in that journal in the previous 2 years (2000 and 2001). The impact factor for any one year (e.g. 2002) is published in the summer of the following year (2003). Only scientific papers are included in the denominator, but articles cited in the numerator can include editorial material, correspondence and book reviews. Although often considered, even by its originator, to have limitations,1 no better method has yet been found of assessing a scientific journal’s performance. The impact factor is considered to reflect the ability of a journal and its editor to attract the best papers available in their field. Particularly in continental Europe, the impact factor of any journal in which an academic has published is taken into account during the appraisal and promotion processes.2 Thus, every editor aims to improve their journal’s impact factor, as a method of increasing the number of manuscripts submitted to it. For specialist monthly journals, this is a particular challenge.

The impact factor of the BJA has changed little in the last 6 years whilst I have been Editor-in-chief, a fact of which I am not particularly proud. For 2002, the BJA’s impact factor was 2.098, and in 2001, 2.205. Since 1994,2 other international anaesthesia journals have overtaken the BJA in the impact factor league table.

Undoubtedly there are subversive methods of improving any journal’s impact factor. Many of them I personally find abhorrent; I am too principled to attempt such manipulations. For instance, one could encourage authors or referees to quote only one’s own journal,3 or one could decrease substantially the number of articles published per issue.4 A large number of citable letters (numerator) and a small number of scientific papers (denominator) would improve any journal’s impact factor, but who would want to read such a journal?

As a theoretical exercise, one can look at the impact factor of various sections or individual papers in a journal. Members of the Editorial Board of the BJA have repeatedly demonstrated to me that Reviews and Clinical Investigations have higher impact factors than Short Communications and Case Reports. Indeed, these latter two sections have very poor impact factors indeed. Thus, in an effort to improve the impact factor of the BJA, from January 2004 new manuscripts submitted as Short Communications will not be considered for publication. They are not quoted sufficiently to merit it. Nor will authors be invited to revise manuscripts at present undergoing peer review into Short Communica tions. However, any Short Communication entered into the review process before January 2004 will still be considered. Hence, within the next few months, the Short Communication section of this journal will cease to exist.

From a personal point of view, however, I prefer to continue to publish a small number of Case Reports in the BJA. This journal is published in part to educate and interest clinical anaesthetists, and I am convinced that Case Reports attract some readers who may not otherwise open the journal. Case Reports should primarily provide new lessons in clinical management. But they also provide guidance as we wrestle with the daily challenges that present to us at the cutting edge of clinical medicine. In addition, for many of us, a Case Report is our first successful attempt at publication, often during our years of training, and this is to be encouraged. Thus, as I start my last year as Editor-in-chief of the BJA, I will continue to accept a limited number of Case Reports for publication. The importance of the impact factor must be balanced against the essential need for any scientific journal to be attractive to its readership.

Many American editors have argued that it is impossible to measure the quality of a scientific journal by one variable; its value simply cannot be measured in this way. At heart, I agree totally with this sentiment. But in an academic world where the impact factor is so well recognized, this journal would ignore it at its peril, and does not intend to do so.

As I face yet another year of inevitable challenge, may I take this opportunity to wish you all a successful and enjoyable 2004, reading (and quoting!) the BJA.

References

1 Garfield E. How can impact factors be improved? BMJ 1996; 313: 411–13[Free Full Text]

2 Smith G. Impact factors in anaesthesia journals. Br J Anaesth 1996; 76: 753–4[Free Full Text]

3 Fassoulaki A, Paraskeva A, Papilas K, Karabinis G. Self-citations in six anaesthesia journals and their significance in determining the impact factor. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 266–9[Abstract/Free Full Text]

4 Joseph KS. Quality of impact factors of general medical journals. BMJ 2003; 326: 283[Free Full Text]