Volume 199 - Issue 3
Better performance metrics for the MJA
Author: Dev A S Kevat
Med J Aust 2013; 199 (3): 172. || doi: 10.5694/mja13.10084
Published online: 5 August 2013
Published online: 5 August 2013
Why should authors choose to submit articles to 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.
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.
Competing interests
I have acted as a peer reviewer for Annals of Internal Medicine.
References
- Medical Journal of Australia. How much do you “like” the MJA [editorial]? Med J Aust 2012; 197: 600-602. 0_CHDEHIEB
- McGee RG, Webster AC, Rogerson TE, Craig JC. Medical device regulation in Australia: safe and effective? Med J Aust 2012; 196: 256-260. 0_i1142871
- Grills NJ. The ethics of industry sponsorship of charities. Med J Aust 2012; 197: 139. 0_pgfId-2827332
- Williams MJ, Kevat DAS, Loff B. Conflict of interest guidelines for clinical guidelines. Med J Aust 2011; 195: 442-445. 0_i1142875
- Thomas Reuters. Journal citation reports, 2010. New York: Thomas Reuters, 2011. 0_i1142877
- 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).