Volume 199 - Issue 3
Better performance metrics for the MJA
Authors: Astika K Kappagoda and Ruth Armstrong
Med J Aust 2013; 199 (3): 172. || doi: 10.5694/mja13.10753
Published online: 5 August 2013
Published online: 5 August 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 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 ...
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 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.
Competing interests
We are both employed by the Australasian Medical Publishing Company, which operates the Medical Journal of Australia.
Using generative artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a narrative review and proposed agenda for implementation
Ian A Scott, Sandeep Reddy, Tanya Kelly, Tim Miller, Anton Vegt
The CURE Asthma roadmap
Gary P Anderson, Anthony Flynn, Phil G Bardin, John D Blakey, Shyamali C Dharmage, Paul Foster, Peter G Gibson, Adam Jaffe, Alan James, Christine R Jenkins, Sundram Sivamalai, Peter D Sly, Guy B Marks, Vanessa M McDonald, Judy Wetttenhall
CURE Asthma: a unique opportunity for Australia
Anthony Flynn, Wendy Edmondson, Alan James, Caroline Lodge, Vanessa M McDonald, Christine R Jenkins, John Blakey, Gary P Anderson
Evidence from Australian cohort studies about asthma trajectories and transitions across the life course: a narrative review
Caroline Lodge, Xin Dai, Ingrid A. Laing, Michael P Menden, Anthony Flynn, Gary P Anderson, Sarath Ranganathan, Shyamali C Dharmage
Technological advances in the search for a CURE for asthma
Sara Quon, Timothy M Johanson, Ridhima Wadhwa, Alen Faiz, Anthony Flynn, Gary P Anderson, Amanda J Cox, Nicholas P West, Michael P Menden, Rhys S Allan
Protecting public interest journalism as a public health good
Bronwyn Fredericks, Neha Lalchandani, Melissa A Sweet, Alex Cramb, Carmel Williams