![[Feedback]](/icons/banner/feedbackACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[For Subscribers]](/icons/banner/subscriberACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Archive]](/icons/banner/archiveACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Search]](/icons/banner/searchACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Contents]](/icons/banner/tocACT.gif){kind=icon}
|
|
|
|
|
||
The Journal of Nutrition
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: acr6{at}psu.edu
In this editorial, I would like to comment on the status of The Journal of Nutrition ("JN"), and particularly on its impact and value to nutritional scientists.
The Journal of Nutrition, which has been in continuous publication since 1928, embodies the scientific qualities and values of its professional society, ASN, for which it is an official scientific publication. Many new journals have come, and some have gone, since 1928. To traditionalists, and I count myself among them, continuity itself has value, as it is pleasing to know that papers published in JN in 2007 are following a long tradition of well reviewed, carefully edited, and well laid-out publications that JN has presented to its readers over 8 decades. In the past year, we have made changes to the production and style of The Journal, and I hope that both its authors and readers—many of you being both—have enjoyed the transition to a more stylish presentation. It is my goal, and that of The Journal's staff and its associate editors, to present authors' work in the very best light. We rely on a system of volunteer reviewers and editors, and it is always gratifying to see that, year by year, more and more busy scientists and educators are willing to say "yes" to requests to review for JN—this is itself a tribute to the importance of the topics covered in manuscripts submitted to JN, and to the prestige of The Journal's authors. At the end of the January 2007 volume you will find a list of the many individuals who reviewed for JN in the previous year. I would like to extend a personal "Thank you" to all of these individuals. The members of The Journal's Editorial Board deserve special mention as they are especially tireless in supporting the quality of JN. By reviewing frequently, they are able to keep tabs in a comparative way on the quality of manuscripts that are submitted for review, and they also play an important role in evaluating whether work fits well with the scope of JN, or would be better suited for another journal. The Journal of Nutrition is also fortunate to have an expert Assistant Editor. It is always a pleasure to hear from authors—and I do hear fairly frequently—that their manuscripts have been improved due to the helpful comments, requests, and suggestions that Dr. Harden has given them. I hope that a willingness to work with authors will always be one of the attributes of JN.
In 2006, JN received over 1100 manuscripts. The acceptance rate remained similar to that in the previous 2 years, at 33%. Just under 20% of manuscripts received were returned rapidly, usually in less than 5 days, without review but with brief comments from the editor and often a consulting associate editor. While we realize that it disappoints authors to have their manuscript returned, this rapid screening process allows JN to focus its resources on reviewing and editing manuscripts that are most closely related to The Journal's scope. Despite their disappointment, authors are generally understanding of the decision and sometimes express their appreciation for having received a rapid decision.
How would I like JN to improve in 2007? First, I would like JN to receive more manuscripts, and especially more submissions from ASN members. The society's Publications committees and its journals are working together to provide incentives to ASN members who submit their excellent work to ASN journals. No longer will corresponding authors who are ASN members be asked to pay a submission fee. Secondly, we would all like to publish JN articles as quickly as possible. Given we work with a volunteer reviewer-editor system, I believe initial decisions are already being made about as fast as is feasible. Authors can shorten the publication time of their articles by responding right away to requests for revisions. By working together, it is possible for carefully prepared, well-written, and quickly revised manuscripts to go from submission to print in 4-5 months. I encourage authors to consult the on-line Guidelines for Authors, which are updated fairly often, and take the time to prepare their manuscripts carefully before submission—it pays off in review and publication time.
Thirdly, I would like the Journal of Nutrition to continue to be perceived as an important source of information, and to have its impact and, more importantly, its value, well recognized. The Journal of Nutrition enjoys a very respectable Impact Factor, 3.689 for 2005, the last year for which statistics were released. It is important to understand what the Impact Factor is, and isn't. The concept of an impact factor originated with Eugene Garfield of the Institute for Scientific Information (now Thomson/ISI), who sought a number for comparing journals in terms of citations to recently published articles. The Impact Factors published annually by Thomson/ISI are the ratios of the number of citations for a journal, divided by the number of articles published in the 2 prior years (e.g., citations in 2005 to articles published in 2003 and 2004). The impact factor is helpful, in a sense, as an indication of the short-term response to the articles in a journal. The impact factor applies to the entire journal, not to specific articles within it, and so it represents an average for all of the papers published within the previous two years. Impact factors tend to be higher for journals that publish many, or only, review articles (for journals in the category including nutrition, impact factors have been highest for Annual Reviews of Nutrition for a number of years). For JN, which contains mostly original research articles, and for which the range of topics covered is very broad, it can be expected that some of these topics will have broader audiences (and more citations) than others. Thus, JN's factor is really an average of many averages. Unfortunately, impact factors have tended to become emphasized as an indicator of quality, to the exclusion of other important indicators of quality and value. One of these other indicators is the Cited Half-life—a number indicating the longevity of citations to work published by a journal. Recently, the American Physiological Society, another FASEB founding society, posted its journals' impact factors and cited half-lifes for 2005 on its website. Interesting to me was, first, that The Journal of Nutrition compares closely to several of the AJP journals, which also are official publications of a long-standing and prestigious scientific society. However, I found the more interesting figures to be the cited half-life values, with ranges from 2.8 to 9.9 years. These values represent the period over which articles continue to be cited. Indeed, the APS journals with longer cited half-lifes were not necessarily those with the highest impact factors. Thus, the value of publications in terms of their usefulness over time will not necessarily be reflected by impact factors. I believe, as many others do too, that we are in need of new metrics to evaluate the real value of journals and their contents over time. As editor, I would love to see The Journal of Nutrition's impact factor continue to rise, as it has risen over the past 7 years, because I know that this factor is often looked at when journals are compared. But I would also like JN's cited half-life, now 5.6 years, to increase, as this metric tells us that what JN publishes now has a continuing value to nutritional and other biomedical scientists over many years in the future.
In 2007, JN will continue to publish review articles in the Recent Advances in Nutritional Sciences series, and as Critical Reviews. These reviews can be either invited or author-contributed. I am always willing to take a look at outlines or abstracts and provide perspective as to whether review topics are timely and suitable in scope for JN. In this month's issue and in March, we will be highlighting reviews related to the economic analysis of nutrition-related policy. I hope that you will enjoy these articles and find them useful in your research, scholarship, and teaching. From time to time, we will also begin publishing "Editor's Choice" reviews—for these, I have invited the Journal's Associate Editors to recommend a subject and an author(s) for an invited review, and to prepare a Commentary to accompany their invited reviews. The first Editor's Choice review is "in the works," and I hope you will enjoy it when it is published in the next few months.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
